The latest threat to free speech (And freedom in general) is not really a threat per se, but more the implications of the precedent that is currently being set. This threat is rather insidious in that lies are being told by omission and/or through half-truths set to deceive people of what the actual truth is. To be fair, this is true in just about every free democracy today. In this case among others, some speech is considered free and championed and speech of the same type from a different viewpoint is termed hateful rhetoric”,”racist” , and even “radical.” This double standard of where speech of one type is termed “heroic” and the same style of speech elsewhere is termed “radical” is a double-standard where our own media is abusing the freedom of the press and where Governments as well are using this to insult and rather persecute people not based on what they say but based on their feelings and the political implications on the issue.
Take a recent site I found on “facts about Australia”. At this site at : http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2698.htm It says among other things the following:
“Gillard is pursuing her campaign promises to build a national broadband network and price carbon. ” But as I have written about before: this is false. Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40EWX6TXgH4
Nothing is as foolhardy as telling people how they should live. In our society, our Government does this over and over again and with reckless abandon. Once upon a time for instance in the US the bureaucracy had a motto of “do not harm.” Well that time has gone and went and the politicians here and in Australia especially recently have gone and either went mad or become struck stupid. Whatever the reason, politicians seem to be actively trying to destroy our countries in the name of minority groups such as greens who are nothing but activists who make a living on spreading fear and mayhem to increase their donations and/or keep their business of bilking the common man out of their hard-earned money so they can live the easy life pampered and sitting in their arm-chairs. These minority groups are really nothing but socialists which I will explain later, but rest assured that any solution they have involves a strong central Government to tackle said problem with a solution set that can only be accomplished via that same principle.
This is especially apparent today in Australia. The Clean Energy Bill formally passed the lower house of the Australian Congress if you will which is where it would have a large fight to pass. A bill where 60% of the population was strongly against it and where 30% were in favor….a bill where the Government promised that if elected it would not implement a carbon tax. The people are the ones who are getting the bum rush on this one.
Basically, Australia just passed a law to “tax Carbon Dioxide. ” Yes, they have implemented a tax on the same air we exhale and just like the US before this, they are taxing it calling this air pollution. Before I go into why this is foolhardy, I wanted to look at specifics of this bill and look at why it is important here in the US especially that we learn why this is something to watch for in the future.
Most notably, this bill is so bad that they HAD to put in a stipulation to make it so that it is just as bad to repeal it as it is to pass it. The economic effects are drastic and terrible, and the worst part of it at all is this: Anyone who tries to repeal it is going to be on the hook to the super-rich who buy carbon credits for quite a bit of money if you repeal the act. This is scandalous to say the least to pass a law which writes in stipulations that the super-rich are to be paid off by someone whether it is the Government or some other entity. Quite wrong if you think about it.
One of the largest issues today is the question of how to regulate greenhouse gases. Most of the Obama administration’s efforts to do so hinges on the supreme court’s 2007 decision otherwise known as the “endangerment finding”. This decision unknown to most people did not state that the EPA “must regulate greenhouse gases.” On the contrary, the decision made no claim in either direction on that particular point. The decision merely stated that the EPA’s current arguments against stating that GHG’s are not pollution were not valid. This part of the decision, however, is deeply flawed as well.
Picture courtesy of: http://www.solstation.com/stars/earth.htm