Circumstantial evidence may be enough to convict in court, provided there is an overwhelming amount of it, but even so, it's often proven later that it's wrong. What often convicts innocent people is "circumstantial evidence" rather than hard evidence.

Just because someone thinks you're full of it, GUEST, does not mean they have a closed mind. No rational human being is going to swallow the kind of thing you're trying to sell without giving it a thorough examination, or without asking for some kind of verifiable evidence beyond the cut-and-pastes from the blogs and highly biased web sites you've been offering. So far, you've come up wanting.

Now, pay attention, GUEST. A common misunderstanding about the Constitution and its various components, such as the Bill of Rights, is that it applies to the government, not to private citizens. Simply put:

The government is not allowed to do anything, unless it is specifically permitted by the Constitution.

Private citizens are free to do anything they wish, unless it is specifically forbidden by the Law.

In the heat of argument, one sometimes hears, "I can say anything I damn well please! We have freedom of speech in this country!" True. Up to a point. The government cannot stop you from expressing your political opinion.   But—if you tell a lie (whether knowingly or not) about someone, or badmouth them to the extent that it could potentially damage their reputation, you are subject to the laws of libel (if what you said is written—and that includes posting on the internet) or slander (if what you say is spoken). You can actually be sued for both, if you both talked and wrote about the person or people in question.

Now some people think that politicians, movie stars, the very wealthy, or other people who live essentially public lives, are fair game for anyone to take pot-shots at. Not so. Many an enterprising investigative reporter, who should have spent a bit more time getting his or her facts straight, has been hauled into court and sued right out of their socks for printing or telling lies about some celebrity. In such a case, the defendant's only defense is to prove that what he or she reported is true. And they should have made sure they could do that before they sat down at the word processor or started shooting their mouths off. And, mind you, libel and slander laws apply, not just to investigative reporters, but to anyone and everyone.

So, First Amendment notwithstanding, you'd better be careful about what you say. We do have freedom of speech in this country. But along with that freedom (like all the other freedoms we enjoy) goes being held responsible for what you say.   And do.

Considering the unsupported allegations you keep spreading, there is good reason for you to try to remain anonymous. But just remember—IP addresses are not that hard to trace.

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, Little Hawk, don't worry about my "comfort zone." I have full knowledge of the mess this country is in and, if anything, that's what disturbs my comfort zone. Nothing our anonymous GUEST has said disturbs my comfort zone any more than reading a John Grisham novel would. Only Grisham's work holds together a whole lot better than GUEST's and is a lot more entertaining.