Don't put me in jail just yet, coach, I still have so much to say!

Josh Wolf vs. OUR TAX DOLLARS. Way to go , Josh's mom! Josh's mom is keeping the fight going! (Could you just imagine: The government asks the webhost provider to shut down Josh's blog and/or website? The G8 demo would be a tea party compared to the rioting of angry bloggers....on the other hand; Tea Party. Boston. Yes. I get it!)

I believe I have said all that needs to be said.

Except:

Since when do we believe government "officials" (That We Pay) when they tell us that, "[if you (let's say a college) are federally funded, then we get to go in and do what we want, otherwise don't be surprised when your next grant application gets sent back to you marked UNACCEPTABLE]", huh? Well, that is basically what colleges all across America have been told regarding better access to campuses for Military Recruiters.

Is there a law - anywhere - that says Partially federally-funded (and I stress partially ) entities must allow all manner of poking or infiltration or management by the fed? No, there isn't, and I know of no federal grant given to colleges worded in like manner, either. I should know, as I have reviewed my old Pell Grant form copies and there is nothing of this nature in the fine print;although there may be the implicit copyright violation having copied the form! My school told me to, "Make sure to copy every single form you ever are asked to sign, and never ever sign a blank contract or form.". Well, to the latter: I have been asked to sign the occasional form once maybe three times in my life, and on those occasions of course I signed them, "RICHARD NIXON". Who doesn't in those cases. It's not like those forms ever were completed - and they weren't - so I don't worry about such nonsense. To those who asked, check the form. You will see I am correct (and do not ever ask me to sign another blank form again. I will refuse.).

If there isn't a law already on the books of what I propose, then we should get one there: ALL federally granted money shall be used for the purpose(s) so granted with absolutely no other obligation by either party to be attached thereof to said grant(s).

Let's get busy, congressmen, or I will actually decide to vote in 08. Hint: Raise your glasses in hope that a citizen of the heart, and not just of natural law, can be voted into the Presidency;

ARNOLD, THE PIG, FOR PRESIDENT (Come on, the pig was "the smart one" on that show!)

IN CONCLUSION:

The real story is not so much Journalism Shield Laws protecting those who are "legit journalists" or bloggers (whom are covered as journalists under present law), but putting to test the "notion" that just because someone (the fed, in this case) GIVES you, or GRANTS you monies for a certain purpose, the only connection between the parties should be that the honest expenditure is followed. If the government GRANTS me money for TUITION, and I decide instead to buy a car, THEN, in only that case I should expect the Feds to be asking me pertinent questions about the unethical purchase!

Associative logic is the only thing holding the federal prosecutors' argument against Josh at this point. One wouldn't expect the bank to prosecute IN PLACE OF a home owner's legal claim against a thief who has broken into that home, would one? Would the builder be a better litigator? Of course not, once the home is purchased and under mortgage and the owner holds the title, the house is owned by .... the owner! What a concept. Just extend the concept of "ownership" in case you are one of those whiners at the bar who always has to add, "The bank owns my house, I don't, he he.". NOT TRUE. Just a TRUISM. There is a DIFFERENCE!

Shut up. YOU own the house when you are holding the TITLE, which almost always occurs AT THE CLOSING. If I was a vet, and I bought my home with a GI loan (OFF base, obviously), then later the house was compromised, the government will NOT step in on my behalf and pay for the prosecution nor are they going to prosecute at all. No way.

So, why is OUR government stepping in on Josh? To marginalize the Press, little by little, obviously. By marginalizing the press - OUR press - whom is to discover for us the truth, the public in general becomes less optimistic that the press will cover the truth and therefore will not much care that journalists are getting such a "raw deal".

Hey, coach, these finger cuffs are too tight. Can I go now?