Sunday, December 02, 2007

Out There


Today is election day in Venezuela and Russia.

Here is the actual referendum from a BBC perspective.

And according to this story,

Putin and his United Russia have won with 63%.

Here, in the geographic state of the United States,

A bill passed the house by 405 to 6.

Must be something we all agree with right?

Here is what Mike Adams has to say about it.

"The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA).

The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post, Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com, Kathryn Smith at OpEdNews.com, and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated.

This is not an exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check yourself here:

The bill states:
..'ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs...
.
Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:

• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency.
.
You get the idea.
.
"Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts. "

There's a lot of fascism out there these days.

And it most certainly isn't all "out there."

Last night we watched a really good dutch movie called the Black Book. It was about the last days of the Nazis in the Netherlands. The Nazis danced, and partied, and murdered, and looted until the very end even as the good guys rode into town.

Exactly where are the good guys now?



HOME

What it is About
Earthfamily Principles

Earthfamilyalpha Content III
Earthfamilyalpha Content II
Earthfamilyalpha Content

Links

LANGUAGE TRANSLATIONS

Labels: ,

1 Comments:

Anonymous not amused said...

I am shocked that the public isn't up in arms about this legislation. Were congressmen all going along with it to absolve themselves from the consequences of being against it--i.e. subject to arrest, torture and all the rest of the Bush power play resources? What other explanation would suffice?
Best,
Frances

8:10 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home