.

The Economic and Political Spectrum at the
Beginning of the 21st Century
Volume 1 – Section 9a 

9a – Freedom of speech and actions

Because of the length of this section it will be divided into 3 parts.
Freedom of speech and actions are two of the most fundamental pieces of our nation. These were the items that were the basis of the foundation of our country. We are now finding that these basic freedoms are being slowly taken away from us in very basic ways. We have already seen how private property is being destroyed, now let’s examine how our basic freedoms are being lost.
On page 8 of the “New American” of February 5, 2007 we find:
“Using the Jack Abramoff bribery scandal and other recent campaign contribution/bribery scandals as a pretext, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is trying to limit grass-roots activism by labeling it as “lobbying.” The American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, Dr. James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and other pro-family, pro-life groups are leading a nationwide effort to stop this assault on the First Amendment, which was put on the fast track for Senate action in January.

“The Traditional Values Coalition is deeply concerned about grass-roots lobbying requirements in Section 220 of S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act,” said TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon on January 12. “This legislation will place onerous reporting requirements on individuals and organizations that lobby our national leaders on issues of importance to them. And, it will impose draconian fines – including potential criminal penalties – for failure to obey these new lobby restrictions.” Rev. Sheldon points out that Section 220 will target any organization with more than 500 supporters or if a communication reaches 500 or more individuals.

“The reporting requirements and penalties in Section 220 “will place incredible financial and time burdens on grassroots groups as well as potential fines – thus making it less likely that these groups risk communicating with their members on important issues,” said Rev. Sheldon. “This cleverly-written section doesn’t directly assault free speech, but it creates a climate of fear that chills free speech. Will a small grassroots group speak out if it fears being fined for failing to file the correct reports to Congress? This legislation is a subversion of our First Amendment Rights.”

One would think that there would be protection from his type of subversion but when we look at the track record of the Supreme Court, the government organization tasked to protect us from this sort of thing, we find that they are a part of the problem. We are losing our republic piece by piece and it’s being done by our elected representatives by actions from within not by a force conquering us from without.
Then on page 9 of the “New American” of February 19th we find the following:
“Thanks to an immense outpouring of opposition from organizations ranging across the political spectrum – from Focus on the Family to the ACLU – dangerous legislation aimed at gutting the First Amendment was defeated in the Senate on January 18. Section 220, known as the “grass-roots lobbying” provision of Senate ethics reform bill (S.1), was an outright assault on the right of ordinary American citizens to exercise their right to stay informed on political matters and to contact their elected officials on matters of concern.

“Under Section 220, any group that contacted as few as 500 people regarding matters before Congress would be treated as a professional lobbyist and subjected to onerous reporting requirements and penalties of $50,000 to $200,000, not to mention potential jail time. This would have affected not only thousands of churches, but also tens of thousands of groups who keep their members and friends alerted to legislative activity on issues ranging from home schooling to property rights, gun rights, right-to-life issues, pornography, tax and spending issues, national security, and constitutional matters.

“Fortunately, the Senate voted 55-43 for an amendment offered by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) to strip Section 220 from the bill.”

The Senate heard the voice of the people! But the important item here is that it was even proposed and then we discover that 43 Senators wanted to strip the American People of their Constitutional rights. From where did they get the idea that it would be okay to destroy our freedoms? How can we feel that these men and women are representing us? This type of law is only thought up and put forward to destroy our ability to voice our thoughts and ideas. 43 of these people are out to destroy our lives by whatever means possible.
Now let’s look at the smoking bans. These began in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Travel on planes was becoming very popular and smoking was offensive in such close and at times crowded conditions. Therefore, it was decided to separate the smokers from the non-smokers. This was the first step. Then cigarette advertisements were banned from television. I for one, cheered these, as I saw them, accomplishments. Then I also cheered as smoking was slowly removed from restaurants. Now lets look at what has happened as a result of these first few steps not only effecting smoking but many other items of our lives.

We have regulations and proposals of many different types. No smoking in cars if there are children present, no trans fat in frying. No smoking in any place the public might gather including private clubs and outdoor public parks and even public sidewalks. No fattening food to be advertised using cartoon characters. This will undoubtedly expand to no advertising of fattening foods at all. All movies must be rated and who can see them controlled. Seat belts must be worn in private cars or suffer the legal consequences. And much more.

All of these things have lofty ideals; morality, safety, health, caring for children, etc. But in each case the reality is that freedoms were taken away. As we will see in the future, these regulations can and will be expanded to completely control of our lives. Using lofty ideals as the vehicle, government will slowly force us to accede to someone else’s expectations of how we should live. Eventually somehow controlling everybody’s lives.
Here is an example:

Smokeless cars for kids
Deseret Morning News editorial
August 31, 2006

“California is considering a new law that will make some people angry but makes great sense. The state is looking to fine motorists $100 if they are discovered smoking while riding or driving in a car with children in it.
“The libertarians are already bristling. They should be listening, instead.
“This is not a freedom of choice issue. It’s a public health issue. And just as any person caught dumping pollutants into baby formula should be hauled before a judge, so should those who contaminate the air that infants inhale.

“And at a time when tobacco companies are working to make their products more deadly and addictive (many cigarettes have 10 percent more nicotine now than they once did), society has an obligation to make sure the bad choices of adults are not visited on the innocent. Child neglect and endangerment can take many forms – from abject cruelty to leaving children alone overnight without supervision.
“Yes, smoking is still a legal activity. And, yes, adults have every right to indulge.
“But visiting disease and death on unsuspecting youngsters crosses the line.
“We urge Utah’s Legislature to look into the California law and craft something similar for use on Utah’s roadways.
The most important part of this review is the background direction of this article and one by Dr. Williams in Section 8 (Private Property). Dr. Williams is an economist whose main aim is to see how our liberties are being abused and the directions they are being taken. The Deseret Morning News article is based on something else. I believe that this editorial was written using the “nose in the tent flap theory.” Take your liberty a little at a time. Then use some other lofty aim to make it appear to be the most humanitarian or caring thing in the world so that those who are in control can continue to take your liberties under the guise of helping the innocents, be they people or animals.

The Deseret Morning news article is attempting to get your consent to willingly give away your freedoms. This is a small item but could have grave consequences. The next step could be to pass the same type of law about smoking in our homes with children present. Then there would have to be actions taken to allow enforcement of the new law and our homes could then be invaded in some way to insure that you are not endangering your children’s health. Even children visiting in a no children household. The Big Brother concept. George Orwell was not wrong about this concept, he just got the year wrong. The next target that could be used to take away additional liberties, after cigarette smoking, could be healthily eating. For children of course! Who else do we care more about?
Now the real question is – who is controlling the newspaper and this direction? Who would gain the most by having these liberties terminated/taken?
In summary, with continuing legislation, the government is controlling what you can do on your property. As we saw above, California is contemplating a law that will control under what situations you can smoke in your own car. They use the guise of health for children; but, they are limiting the use of your own property and freedoms. This will be a continuing problem. Government is using whatever means is available and slowly but surely, they are taking control of our freedoms on our own property.
As of September 28, 2006, New York City has moved into diabetes to begin to control our lives. We had better be alert as these things can and will take away our freedoms. Just when will we feel that it is enough?

Big Brother Is Weight Watching
Wall Street Journal
September 28, 2006

New York City bans trans fats and tracks down diabetics.

“”Big Brother,” “Orwellian,” “Nanny state”–all those words were on the lips of New Yorkers this week after the local Board of Health proposed banning most so-called trans fats from the city’s more than 20,000 eateries. The targeted fatty acids are produced when vegetable oil is solidified with hydrogen–for frying foods or making baked goods, among other things. They can raise levels of “bad” cholesterol. Even health officials can’t honestly claim that trans fats are a major cause of heart and artery problems. They are the demon du jour, however, and the overlords of New York seem bent on saving us from them.

“If the current proposal actually becomes law, every outlet from the fanciest restaurant to the smallest pizza parlor will have 18 months to find substitutes for trans fat-producing hydrogenated oils. These oils figure in thousands of recipes, in part because they produce familiar good tastes and textures but also because the oils don’t get rancid quickly.

“Once the city fathers are done telling restaurants what they can serve, though, who is to say that they won’t come after us by a more direct route? The idea is not that far-fetched. Early this year, the city quietly added diabetes, a chronic, noninfectious condition, to a list of communicable diseases that it tracks, such as syphilis.

“Now, when labs detect a high blood-sugar level in a sample, they are required by law to report that finding to officials. If you thought the results of a diabetes test were between you and your doctor, think again. The city records the fact that you, personally, have developed diabetes, and authorities are empowered to monitor your treatment and even to conduct what it calls “interventions.” Perhaps you will soon get a knock on the door from a city worker wanting to know if you are sticking to your prescribed regimen for dealing with a host of chronic conditions.

“Undeniably New York, like other cities, is worried about the cost–in health-care bills and social problems–of an explosion of diabetes cases, which are often linked to obesity. Authorities are casting about for ways to make potential patients look after themselves. This month, Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed a formal report from a city commission suggesting that New York consider offering money to poor people who make regular visits to a doctor, as an incentive for them to stay healthy.
“At least no one would be forced to take the money, and the proposal has the whiff of a market solution. The market is at least no worse at getting people to do things than government is. If we ask for “health food”–organic, low in sodium, high in antioxidants, whatever–someone will make it. If manufacturers tout their food as healthier, somebody will buy it.

“The trouble is that few foods are healthy if you eat too much of them. The label “no cholesterol” or “low fat” is not the ticket to dietary success that many of us want to believe. The best way to eat healthy is to count calories. But reducing one’s intake of trans fats is so much easier–especially if no one is allowed to serve them–that it’s tempting for everyone, including consumer health groups, to focus on this sort of fad and not on the boring old adage about doing everything in moderation.

“Yet calorie counting has stood the test of time. A sad sidebar to the New York story is that when health activists targeted saturated fats in the 1980s, food purveyors replaced things like beef tallow with vegetable oils, and everybody cheered. Who knew that today, hydrogenated oils and their trans fats would be labeled toxic killers?”

This article is copyright © 2007, by Richard Proctor. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s name is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved.