"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.


What rights "granted under the Constitution" are being trampled here?



After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth.


What noble journalists?



Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.


I'd prefer a free, objective press.



Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?


The Constitution HAS become meaningless and Churchill had nothing to do with
it.



(Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
"Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")


And we haven't been for a very long time. (By the way, if Williams said
that recently he stole the line.)



If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:


What 1st Amendment right is being denied to Churchill?