No Joke

It seems that our backward, inept, spineless district court judge in Oklahoma (Lee West) is not alone. After Congress "swiftly moved" to act on the erroneous ruling, yet another district court judge, Edward Nottingham, has thrown up another "obstacle": the First Amendment Rights of the telemarketing companies.

Is this really happening?

According to Nottingham, "The registry creates a burden on one type of speech based solely on its content". Is that right Mr. Nottingham?

Actually, it is right.

Here's the problem; the blocking of the speech has nothing at all to do with the content. It has nothing to do with free speech. Where are these calls made? They are made to our homes. Inside our homes. It doesn't matter if you want to try and sell me something, buy something for me, or talk about the weather. In my home your right to free speech is nonexistent. You have the right to not say anything, you have the right to leave (or hang up), but if I decide I don't want a particular sort of message in my home, be it in person, on the television, or the phone, it is my right to make sure it doesn't appear in my home. It is not the "First Amendment Right" of those that would convey that message.

These are not talk show hosts. They aren't pollsters. These are the people we have in place to interpret our laws. These are the people we count on to know what our laws mean when a question arises. These are the people that are supposed to be the voices of reason when our rights are in jeapardy. Instead, they are bumbling beaurocratic pinheads that haven't a clue when it comes to fulfilling the requirments of their position.

I am not a judge, lawyer, politician, or political analyst. But even my supposed feeble and uneducated understanding of this issue is more comprehensive than the moronic conclusions drawn by those that we pay an enormous sum of money to know what they are talking about. No wonder this country is in such a quagmire of problems.

As stated in part I, these insane delays based on fictitious non-existent rights are only temporary. Of course we can count on our elected officials to overturn these crazy rulings. But again, this is not the job of government. The government shouldn't have to intervene. If we decide that we do not want someone in our house, calling us on the phone, or appearing on our television set, the decision to keep them out of our homes is ours alone. There is no higher power. There is no one to answer to. By sitting idly and waiting for this beaurocratic process to go through, we are telling our government that we do have to answer to them. We are telling them that there is no aspect of our lives that is not subject to their approval. This is not acceptable. This is tyranny pure and simple. The most educated and intelligent argument against this assessment is shot down by a fool that has common sense.

The problem is that the fools without common sense are the one interpreting our laws.