Found inside the cab of, oddly enough, a Union Pacific diesel-electric locomotive set idling within the constraints of my mountain domain.

I don’t think I’ve seen as many frightening days and as many bad portents on the horizon as I have this past year and now.

One of my greatest concerns is the potential loss of our freedom of speech which, of particular import to me, translates to writing.

Our very own First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

There was a time when, in a playful manner if you will, I perhaps joked a bit about the loss of our freedoms due to various Politically Correct postures taken by venues of the Left. Being “P.C.” in portions of our speech was something of which we poked fun.

No more. Now there are laws extant and laws in the making.

Today, it is no longer anything even remotely resembling a joking matter. It is of such import that there are two current cases of great concern which may change the way we choose, in a so-called “free society,” to deal with so-called “free speech,” and may alter forever the real meaning of “free.”

This case is occurring in England.

This case is occurring in Canada.

Also, Mark Steyn’s feet are being put to the censorship fire in Canada. Check this out as well, regarding Finland, Israel and Austria.

And in America, mark my words all readers within the periphery of my blog, many of these things are here. Now. In the United States. And coming.

I’ve written numerous time about the Fairness Doctrine and its future when the Demorats may take power in November. Controlling the White House, House and Senate, two things can be guaranteed: taxes up; free speech down. Some of my prior posts on the topic include:

FCC States The Truth;

It’s The Economy, Stupid;

Traitorous;

The Push Continues;

Everything Except Free Speech;

Killing Conservative Communication;

Wanted By Liberals: Freedom of Speech Removed;

The Fairness Doctrine: Coming Soon To A Licensee Near You;

But how do you modify free speech? Sultan Knish says: by the carrot and the stick.

The carrot comes in the form of the manifold benefits of the nanny state that promises to feed, clothe, educate, heal and otherwise take care of everyone from cradle to grave. To get these things you of course have to accept the rise of an increasingly authoritarian social and political system and despite swallowing the bulk of your income, the nanny state has trouble delivering decent results and its bureaucratic arrogance inevitably makes life unpleasant– but the carrot offers benefits in exchange for compliance and complacency.

The stick is censorship. The first tier of censorship is self-censorship, in which a person censors himself and is careful to avoid saying or even thinking what is ‘outside the lines’.

The second tier of censorship is indoctrinational censorship which covers the range of institutions from school to university to the media to the government’s press agencies which set the tone for “acceptable” and “unacceptable ideas. This indoctrination usually involves repeating and promoting a simple concept or idea.

The third tier of censorship is social censorship, the goal of indoctrinational censorship is to create and enforce the social consensus of what the acceptable view is. When indoctrinational censorship is successful, social censorship crystallizes by making it impossible to say certain things out loud.

The fourth tier of censorship is police censorship. Despite social censorship, some people will have contrary opinions. The approach to managing unacceptable opinions is the steel behind the velvet glove, the stick itself, censorship by law enforcement and legal action. Currently British blogger Lionheart has been targeted but he is merely part of a larger situation.

Finally we come full circle to the fifth and the first tier of censorship, self-censorship. The end result of this Orwellian tangle of indoctrinational, social and legal censorship is to induce self-censorship, to keep people from not only speaking out but to prevent them from even thinking about those things. To create an atmosphere of fear and guilt at the very thought of dissent itself.

It is deeply disturbing to me, to see Western Cultures fall prey to the hacking and slashing of their freedoms of speech and thought. And yet it appears that Western Cultures only are subject to this trending and, oddly enough, only Western Cultures once thought to be the firmest bastions and repositories of free speech.

This just isn’t coincidence, ladies and gentlement — and it isn’t piecemeal. It is a concerted, cognizant, deliberate attempt to repress your fundamental God-given rights, and your American rights.

We ignore these trends at our global, national and individual peril.

What more could happen during the Bush Administration?

Glad you asked. How about this:

Since “unrestricted” private ownership of guns clearly threatens the public safety, the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted to allow a variety of gun restrictions, according to the Bush administration.

The argument was delivered by U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing arguments over the legality of a District of Columbia ban on handguns in homes, according to a report from the Los Angeles Times.

Clement suggested that gun rights are limited and subject to “reasonable regulation” and said all federal limits on guns should be upheld.

“Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the 2nd Amendment,” he wrote in the brief, the Times reported.

Since when can you recall a Republican administration that looked upon the Second Amendment as a “hint” or a “suggestion” and not really an immured portion of the U.S. Constitution and the basis of all our law?

And here’s a “suggestion” of my own: try actually enforcing laws involving gun crimes, and sentencing those who possess a firearm during the commission of any crime to some very serious time.

1. They can either vote for Barack Hussein Obama against Hillary Rodham Clinton and be sexists.

2. Or they can vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton against Barack Hussein Obama and be racists.

What turmoil!

Whatever shall they choose? What an impossible Leftist dilemma!