Time for a little lesson in the First Amendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now, what is not in this little line?

1) The public is not obliged to follow this. Whereas the government cannot make any laws to stop free speech, the public is not restricted by using its own protected speech to drown out those that it disagrees with.


2) The public is not obliged to listen.


3) The public can respond to speech it disagrees with in any way short of violating the laws of the land.

Why don't the Dixie Chicks, Peter Arnet, and the rest of the liberals out there understand this? They sit and claim 'freedom of speech' when they make their stupid statements, but the public has every right in the world to respond in the way they are doing...especially with the ultimate expression of the public's might, their economic power. I can call them what I think they are, traitors, and the government cannot arrest me just as the government cannot arrest them for making the stupid statements in the first place. In Iraq, they would be shot for speaking out against the government. In the US, they can speak out, but that doesn't mean the public has to agree. At least they won't be lined up against a wall and shot.


This, of course, breaks down when another law is violated. Notice the 'peaceably to assemble' portion of the same amendment. If you do your little marches, that's fine. The moment you disrupt commerce, you lose your protections and enter into one of two other areas - Disturbing the Peace or Treason, depending on motivations and how far you go. Of course, other laws like assault, vandalism, murder, rape, etc. can also occur, but usually most protestors are arrested for Disturbing the Peace.


Now, onward to Article 3, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Those organizing the protests in San Francisco and New York are purposely attempting to disrupt the economy of the United States. They have stated so in their literature, calling on protests against the war. By disrupting the economy of the United States, it gives material 'aid and comfort' to Iraq and to those terrorist organizations that hate the United States. The statements attempting to hurt the United States to the foreign press gives 'aid and comfort' as well to our enemies, emboldening them to attempt more strikes.


Lastly, to those who claim the war is 'illegal', I show you Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, a document that supercedes any treaty:

"The Congress shall have power to ... To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; "

Iraq's illegal weapons stores have been found to be an offense against the law of nations for over 12 years. By authorizing money to stop terrorists and those who support terrorists, Iraq - in sponsoring at least three different terror organizations - falls under this provision, with Congressional approval. Note: It does not state that war must be declared. Though that appears later, it is a separate section, and is a part in and of itself and not this line.


Thus, I exercise MY freedom of speech in calling the liberals what I think they are, liberals, traitors, and hypocrites.