Home

Rep. Adam Schiff Sued by Physicians for Censoring Vaccine Debate

3 Comments

 

 

American Association of Physicians & Surgeons

 

 

“In February and March 2019, Rep. Schiff contacted Google, Facebook, and Amazon, to encourage them to de-platform or discredit what Schiff asserted to be inaccurate information on vaccines. He then posted the letters and press release on the House.gov website.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Jan 15, 2020, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with Katarina Verrelli, on behalf of herself and others who seek access to vaccine information, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Adam Schiff has abused government power and infringed on their free-speech rights.

“Who appointed Congressman Adam Schiff as Censor-in-Chief?” asks AAPS General Counsel.  “No one did, and he should not be misusing his position to censor speech on the internet.”

In February and March 2019, Rep. Schiff contacted Google, Facebook, and Amazon, to encourage them to de-platform or discredit what Schiff asserted to be inaccurate information on vaccines. He then posted the letters and press release on the House.gov website.

Within 24 hours of Schiff’s letter to Amazon dated Mar 1, 2019, Amazon removed the popular videos Vaxxed and Shoot ’Em Up: the Truth About Vaccines from its platform for streaming videos, depriving members of the public of convenient access.

Under a policy announced in May 2019, Twitter includes a pro-government disclaimer placed above search results for an AAPS article on vaccine mandates: “Know the Facts. To make sure you get the best information on vaccination, resources are available from the US Department of Health and Human Services.” The implication of this disclaimer is that if information is not on a government website, then it is somehow less credible.

On Facebook, a search for an AAPS article on vaccines, which previously would  lead directly to the AAPS article, now produces search results containing links to the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Institutes of Health, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Visits to the AAPS website have declined significantly since March 2019, both in absolute terms and relative to the decline that would result from a story’s losing its recency.

“The internet is supposed to provide free access to information to people of different opinions,” stated AAPS Executive Director, Jane Orient, M.D.

Dr. Orient continues, “AAPS is not ‘anti-vaccine,’ but rather supports informed consent, based on an understanding of the full range of medical, legal, and economic considerations relevant to vaccination and any other medical intervention, which inevitably involves risks as well as benefits.”

AAPS argues in the complaint against Rep. Schiff: “The First Amendment protects the rights of free speech and association. Included within the right of free speech is a right to receive information from willing speakers. Under the First Amendment, Americans have the right to hear all sides of every issue and to make their own judgments about those issues without government interference or limitations. Content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional, and courts analyze such restrictions under strict scrutiny.”

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a national organization representing physicians in all specialties since 1943.

A New Kind of Tyranny: The Global State’s War on Those Who Speak Truth to Power

1 Comment

By John W. Whitehead
November 5, 2019

“What happens to Julian Assange and to Chelsea Manning is meant to intimidate us, to frighten us into silence. By defending Julian Assange, we defend our most sacred rights. Speak up now or wake up one morning to the silence of a new kind of tyranny. The choice is ours.”—John Pilger, investigative journalist

All of us are in danger.

In an age of prosecutions for thought crimes, pre-crime deterrence programs, and government agencies that operate like organized crime syndicates, there is a new kind of tyranny being imposed on those who dare to expose the crimes of the Deep State, whose reach has gone global.

The Deep State has embarked on a ruthless, take-no-prisoners, all-out assault on truth-tellers.

Activists, journalists and whistleblowers alike are being terrorized, traumatized, tortured and subjected to the fear-inducing, mind-altering, soul-destroying, smash-your-face-in tactics employed by the superpowers-that-be.

Take Julian Assange, for example.

Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks—a website that published secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources—was arrested on April 11, 2019, on charges of helping U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning access and leak more than 700,000 classified military documents that portray the U.S. government and its military as reckless, irresponsible and responsible for thousands of civilian deaths.

Included among the leaked Manning material were the Collateral Murder video (April 2010), the Afghanistan war logs (July 2010), the Iraq war logs (October 2010), a quarter of a million diplomatic cables (November 2010), and the Guantánamo files (April 2011). More

Anti-vaxx people are really Russian bots

2 Comments

PPJ’s Note:  Who didn’t see this coming?  Russia is now blamed for supposedly poisoning the public against vaccinations.  Never mind that we have hundreds of thousands of children permanently damaged by vaccines, that we have scientific evidence that vaccines cause more harm than any good they might do.  It couldn’t possibly be that the CDC profits greatly from buying, selling and promoting vaccines, that the HPV vaccine along with the MMR are so highly dangerous they are banned in France, Japan and Israel.   Dont even consider for a  moment that no vaccine safety testing has been done in more than 40 years!  Don’t think about Italy repealing mandatory vaccines as a result of massive harm and costs to public health……just think about the Russians!  Yeah!  That’s it!  Its the Russians! 

PS:  Senator Pan who pushed mandatory vaccines thru in California has exempted his children from vaccinations. say what???

Jon Rappoport’s Blog

 

By Jon Rappoport

Well, well. The virulently pro-vax forces have just discovered their opponents are really, wait for it, Russian bots, launched to promote societal discord and polarize conflict.

That settles it. Nothing to see, move along. The arguments rejecting vaccine safety and efficacy were just bot-nonsense. No need to understand what they were saying. It was all a sham. Vaccines are wonderful. Everybody knows that.

On California Senator Richard Pan’s website—Pan sponsored the mandatory childhood vaccination bill in CA that became law—we find this:

“Dr. Richard Pan, a pediatrician and state senator representing the Sacramento region, responded to the study, Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate, published in the American Journal of Public Health.”

[Senator Pan states] “This research provides evidence that foreign and domestic agents are manipulating social media through bots to discourage vaccination to promote their own agendas; Russian trolls for sowing political discord and commercial and malware distributors for marketing. In addition, the researchers concluded that a significant proportion of anti-vaccination messages are organized ‘astroturf.’ Manipulation of social media to promote anti-vaccine messages by outside agents poses a serious threat to the health and safety of Americans…”

The devious implication? There is no serious anti-vaccine research, it’s all bots and Russians.

I know at least a dozen serious independent vaccine researchers who have found huge holes in conventional vaccine mythology—but guess what? It turns out they’re non-human bots. Who knew I was sitting having coffee with a bot? Wow. Amazing what you learn when you listen to Authorities.

More

California Considers Monitoring Online Speech

Leave a comment

Reflections on Media and Politics

Editor’s Note: California may set the tone for a national conversation and perhaps even set of laws addressing what the state’s lawmakers deem “false information … spread online.” Since political motivation and ideology often underly what one deems “fake news” this proposed move should be especially concerning for those who truly cherish free thought and expression. As the article below suggests, Facebook’s recent nod to corporate media outlets as an antithesis to “fake news” has demonstrated how such an effort is likely to be instituted in California and elsewhere. The Electronic Frontier Foundation argues that the law is dangerous because it places the governing body in a position to determine what is true and false.

The proposed speech legislation was introduced by California State Senator Richard Pan, a practicing pediatrician and the principal lawmaker behind SB277, the state’s mandatory vaccination law. A voter-driven campaign in 2015 to have Pan ousted from office was not successful.

California State Senator Richard Pan. Image Credit: Rich Pedroncelli/Associated Press

CBS13 Sacramento reports:

California is considering creating a “fake news” advisory group in order to monitor information posted and spread on social media.

Senate Bill 1424 would require the California Attorney General to create the advisory committee by April 1, 2019. It would need to consist of at least one person from the Department of Justice, representatives from social media providers, civil liberties advocates, and First Amendment scholars.

More

The 6 Cartoons a US Newspaper Doesn’t Want You to See

Leave a comment

(FAIR) The work of Rob Rogers, longtime political cartoonist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, has been notably absent from his paper’s opinion page during this past week. Aside from a cartoon criticizing the trade war posted on Tuesday, June 5, the most recent of Rogers’ drawings appeared last Thursday, May 24.

So where was Rogers all of last week? He did not simply “have the day off,” as printed in last Tuesday’s issue of the Post-Gazette.

Keith Burris, the Post-Gazette’s editorial director since March, when it merged its editorial board with the co-owned Toledo Blade, refused to publish six of Rogers’ cartoons in a row. Four were directly critical of President Donald Trump, and two alluded to racism.

Despite not being published in the Post-Gazette, Rogers continued posting these cartoons on Twitter, as he does with all of his work.

May 25’s cartoon portrayed a referee calling penalties for exercising free speech, disrespecting the troops and eliciting Trump tweetstorms, in light of the NFL’s announcement of their new rule dictating players must stand during the national anthem:

READ MORE HERE!

 

1984 Doublespeak

Leave a comment

Author,
Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The definition of Doublespeak is language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth.  Merriam-Webster.  For decades, an example of doublespeak can be seen through political persuasion, educational propaganda, censorship or fake news.  Augustus and Tiberius were dedicated to Rome’s imperial doubled doublespeak,  paying lip service to the Republic while ruling as oppressive emperors.

Taking this discourse a bit further, where is the evidence for America using the charade of doublespeak? Besides concealing certain events though censorship or fabrication with the likes of the mainstream media, Facebook or Google tampering, all one must do is look at how many executive orders are used by a U.S. President. One example shows that President Obama used executive orders that surpassed the combined executive total of all of the past Presidents.

Is this the unpardonable sin? Consequently, the American “Republic” took the biggest, emperor hit ever, considering that the power of any Republic rests with the people and the Congressional representatives who are elected, “by the people.” Yet why had Congress looked the other way?

Furthermore, in this day and age, doublespeak takes on other maladies.  For instance, some have declared that those who were our Founders and went to war with Great Britain during the American Revolution were “terrorists”.  Yet, these same people who attack the likes of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the rest, are presently attempting to rewrite history and steer our entire nation towards a secular, Marxist form of government that would eventually become part of an un-elected New World Order where nationalism withers away.

Is not the European Union one of the best examples of the coming oppression? More

Environmental Activist Sued for Libel Over Facebook Comment About Oil and Gas Company

3 Comments

SOURCE: desmogblog

By Simon Davis-Cohen

On November 17, 2016, a Colorado environmental activist named Pete Kolbenschlag used Facebook to leave a comment on a local newspaper article, the kind of thing more than a billion people do every day.

However, most people don’t get sued for libel over their Facebook comments. (Although some do.)

The Post Independent story that Kolbenschlag commented on was about oil and gas extraction on federal lands near his home, in western Colorado’s North Fork Valley. It announced that the Obama administration’s Bureau of Land Management was canceling all oil and gas leases on the iconic Thompson Divide, a large, rugged swath of Forest Service land.

In retaliation, the article reported, a Texas-based oil and gas company called SG Interests (SGI), which owned 18 leases in the Thompson Divide area, was planning legal action against the federal government. The decision to cancel Thompson Divide leases was one of Obama’s last while in office.

SGI claimed it had obtained documents that “clearly show” that the decision to cancel the leases “was a predetermined political decision from the Obama administration taking orders from environmental groups.”

Kolbenschlag, who has opposed drilling in the region and engaged in environmental advocacy for some 20 years, responded to SGI’s allegations by posting the following comment:

While SGI alleges “collusion” let us recall that it, SGI, was actually fined for colluding (with GEC) to rig bid prices and rip off American taxpayers. Yes, these two companies owned by billionaires thought it appropriate to pad their portfolios at the expense of you and I and every other hard-working American.”

Shortly thereafter, SGI sued Kolbenschlag for libel (which generally refers to defamatory written statements).

SGI Investigation and Settlement

Kolbenschlag’s comment was in reference to a settlement SGI and Gunnison Energy Company (GEC), another oil and gas firm active on federal lands in the region, signed with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2012.

According to court documents filed by SGI, the settlement followed a two-year investigation into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two oil and gas companies in which “SGI would bid on certain federal oil and gas leases … and … SGI would assign GEC a 50 percent interest in any leases for which it was the successful bidder.” In other words, rather than compete in the bidding process, SGI would do the bidding, and then give GEC half of the mineral rights.

According to these court documents, the Justice Department’s two-year investigation led it to determine “that SGI’s and GEC’s agreement to bid jointly pursuant to the MOU constituted a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman [Antitrust] Act.”

The original settlement “required” the companies to pay $550,000 for “antitrust and False Claims Act violations.” It was the first time the federal government challenged an “anticompetitive bidding agreement for mineral rights leases.” That settlement, however, was later rejected by a federal judge, who approved a new settlement of $1 million and did not require the companies to admit to wrongdoing.

Libel or Retaliation?

SGI argues that Kolbenschlag’s statement that the company was fined for colluding with GEC is libelous because it is “contrary to the true facts, and reasonable persons … reading … the statement would be likely to think significantly less favorably about [SGI] than they would if they knew the true facts.”

The company argues that it was never convicted of or admitted to wrongdoing, and the settlement agreement did not require it. SGI further argues that it was not “fined,” but rather agreed to pay the government money to settle the case.

Moreover, SGI claims that “agreements such as the ones entered into between SGI and GEC are common place in the oil and gas industry.” And therefore, presumably, there’s nothing wrong with what they did.

Kolbenschlag’s attorney not only argues that his client’s comment was “substantially true” in the eyes of ordinary readers, but also that SGI’s lawsuit against him is in retaliation against his environmental activism. In legal briefs, his attorney writes that “this lawsuit is SGI’s transparent and blatant effort to punish Mr. Kolbenschlag for his public speech and advocacy that are not to SGI’s liking.”

For example, Kolbenschlag was part of a group called Citizens for a Healthy Community that focused on BLM rulemaking related to hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on federal lands. “SGI is misusing the judicial system as the means to silence its critics,” claimed Kolbenschlag’s attorney.

READ the rest of this article HERE.

David Rucki Says Blog Threatens Him

6 Comments

Michael Volpe

All rights reserved under the 1st Amendment regarding free speech. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Asphaug appears to be David Rucki’s personal judge. She presided over each of the four criminal trials in this case- Sandra Grazzini-Rucki, Dede Evavold, Dough Dahlen, and Gina Dahlen.

Asphaug ruled to disallow nearly all of David Rucki’s criminal history and forced Gina Dahlen to testify in multiple trials even though she was a defendant still awaiting her trial.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Beware, the next blog post may be a threat to someone’s safety.

That’s the allegation made in an ex-parte restraining order filed by David Rucki against Dede Evavold.

“Respondent (Evavold) continues to post information about my family, photos of my family, myself and other members of my family,” Rucki said in his ex-parte harassment restraining order application, “Respondent also continues to make allegations which are false but may incite others against me. My children are frightened for their safety and feel their privacy has been violated.”

The application continued, “This is a proven pattern that has been going on for years.”

Rucki does not specify what Evavold has said which is harassing or threatening; an email to Rucki’s attorney, Lisa Elliot, was left unreturned.

Evavold has a blog called Red Herring Alert, where she writes about the Rucki case among other blog posts.

This is not the first time David Rucki has used the legal system to try and shut Evavold’s blogging down. In the Summer 2016, his then attorney, Marshall Tannick, sent Evavold a letter threatening a lawsuit if she didn’t remove her blog immediately.

“I am writing to you on behalf of David Rucki,” began a letter from Tanick to Evavold from June 7, 2016, “and his daughters, Samantha and Gianna, with regard to the matter relating to the removal and concealment of the girls and related incidents that have occurred during that episode and thereafter.

“There are various civil claims arising from your involvement in this matter.”

Tannick did not respond to an email for comment and it’s not clear if he is representing him regarding the restraining order.

Evavold did not respond to the letter at the time and continued blogging. More

A FREE PRESS MEANS A FREE PEOPLE: IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

2 Comments

new-logo251_002Author, Chuck Frank

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
database-photo1One of the greatest deterrents to a free society is having a controlled press that deceives, spreads disinformation, creates propaganda and also uses censorship while distorting the truth. Thanks to the Internet and the alternative news sources, the people now have the opportunity to fly below the radar and see what transpires in the secret world of the mainstream media and various shadow organizations.

This month, an announcement coming from the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that the agency would be giving their own intelligence gathering associates the latest software called ACCENT, which is a new and improved version of spyware meant to follow the actual PRINT of hundreds of socio-political events plus news articles, posts, blogs or any other form of information that may be monitored by an automatic, computer software reader.

  I am assuming this software will analyze key words and phrases. This latest program, more than doubles the accuracy of the previously deployed program which enhances media monitoring to the max! Say what? More

Been to a Protest? Then you are an economic terrorist!

Leave a comment

Urgent action needed: a proposed new law would allow authorities to charge nonviolent protesters with “economic terrorism.” Click here to sign the petition to stop this!

This is a disaster. A new law proposed by a State Senator in Washington would allow prosecutors to charge protesters with “economic terrorism,” and slap them with serious felony charges that could lead to jail time, just for making their voices heard. [1]

The outrageous proposed bill would make any form of protest that causes an “economic disruption” a class C felony, punishable by up to 5 years in prison. It wouldn’t just apply to people who engage in illegal acts or vandalism, it could be used to prosecute any person or group who organizes a protest that authorities deem as “disruptive.” Broadly interpreted, this law could apply to time honored traditions of nonviolent dissent like boycotts and civil disobedience.

Click here to sign the petition demanding lawmakers drop this dangerous attack on our basic right to free speech and assembly.

Charging protesters with terrorism clearly violates the First Amendment and is an attempt to silence legitimate dissent. Please sign the petition telling lawmakers to reject this dangerous legislation.

We need everyone to speak out right now so we can shut down this terrible proposed legislation before it spreads to other states. This affects all of us. Will you sign the petition to stop it?

Click here: https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/urgent-new-law-would-charge-protesters-with-terrorism/

We need to remain vigilant. No matter who is in power, protecting our right to dissent is imperative for the future of our society.

Thanks for reading,
-Evan at Fight for the Future

[1] The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/306580-washington-republican-floats-charging-protesters-with-economic-terrorism

Fight for the Future works to protect your rights in the digital age.

‘We the Prisoners’: The Demise of the Fourth Amendment

Leave a comment

speak truth

By John W. Whitehead

June 28, 2016

“Our carceral state banishes American citizens to a gray wasteland far beyond the promises and protections the government grants its other citizens… When the doors finally close and one finds oneself facing banishment to the carceral state—the years, the walls, the rules, the guards, the inmates—reactions vary. Some experience an intense sickening feeling. Others, a strong desire to sleep. Visions of suicide. A deep shame. A rage directed toward guards and other inmates. Utter disbelief. The incarcerated attempt to hold on to family and old social ties through phone calls and visitations. At first, friends and family do their best to keep up. But phone calls to prison are expensive, and many prisons are located far from one’s hometown… As the visits and phone calls diminish, the incarcerated begins to adjust to the fact that he or she is, indeed, a prisoner. New social ties are cultivated. New rules must be understood.”—Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic

In a carceral state—a.k.a. a prison state or a police state—there is no Fourth Amendment to protect you from the overreaches, abuses, searches and probing eyes of government overlords.

In a carceral state, there is no difference between the treatment meted out to a law-abiding citizen and a convicted felon: both are equally suspect and treated as criminals, without any of the special rights and privileges reserved for the governing elite.

In a carceral state, there are only two kinds of people: the prisoners and the prison guards.

With every new law enacted by federal and state legislatures, every new ruling handed down by government courts, and every new military weapon, invasive tactic and egregious protocol employed by government agents, “we the people”—the prisoners of the American police state—are being pushed that much further into a corner, our backs against the prison wall.

This concept of a carceral state in which we possess no rights except for that which the government grants on an as-needed basis is the only way I can begin to comprehend, let alone articulate, the irrational, surreal, topsy-turvy, through-the-looking-glass state of affairs that is being imposed upon us in America today.

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we who pretend we are free are no different from those who spend their lives behind bars.

Indeed, we are experiencing much the same phenomenon that journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates ascribes to those who are banished to a “gray wasteland far beyond the promises and protections the government grants its other citizens” : a sickening feeling, a desire to sleep, hopelessness, shame, rage, disbelief, clinginess to the past and that which is familiar, and then eventually resignation and acceptance of our new “normal.”

All that we are experiencing—the sense of dread at what is coming down the pike, the desperation, the apathy about government corruption, the deeply divided partisanship, the carnivalesque political spectacles, the public displays of violence, the nostalgia for the past—are part of the dying refrain of an America that is fading fast.

No longer must the government obey the law.

Likewise, “we the people” are no longer shielded by the rule of law.

While the First Amendment—which gives us a voice—is being muzzled, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled. More

All Our Children Are Now FBI Terrorism Suspects

2 Comments

Maybe we should report the FBI for domestic terrorism activities.

Warning Against Efforts to Muzzle Citizens & Avoid Transparency, Rutherford Institute Issues 1st Amendment Guidelines for Public Meetings

Leave a comment

For Immediate Release: March 9, 2016

RutherfordHeader_2

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. —Warning that representative government works best when the government’s actions are fully disclosed and citizens are allowed to speak honestly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens without fear of retribution, The Rutherford Institute has issued guidelines for local boards, commissions and councils to consider and follow in order to best assure that the fundamental First Amendment rights of citizens are respected.

In recent years, numerous local boards and commissions have attempted to establish rules and regulations governing speech at public meetings that limit the content and manner of public expression in an attempt to “dial down” the intensity of these meetings and impose a more “civil” discourse. However, these restrictions on expression often run afoul of the First Amendment, making local officials self-appointed censors and arbitrary arbiters of what speech is and is not proper.

The Rutherford Institute’s Public Meetings Guidelines are available at www.rutherford.org.

“Until recently, local government meetings have remained one of the few legitimate forums available to citizens to personally address their government representatives about decisions that have immediate and substantial impact on their day-to-day lives,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Unfortunately, officials at all levels of government have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents through the use of free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, security barriers, regulations restricting what is said at public meetings, and other tactics that run afoul of the First Amendment’s safeguards for free speech, public assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These guidelines are intended to empower citizens to push back against those who would stifle the ardor of citizens, arbitrarily silence critics and impede efforts to assure transparency in government.”

The Rutherford Institute issued its guidelines after being contacted by residents of Charlottesville, Va., who were concerned about draconian changes to the City’s public comment rules regarding the content, duration and protocol for making public comments at City Council meetings. The City’s revised procedures include restrictions on video recording, a prohibition on “improper” comments, exclusion of individuals for disruptive or disorderly conduct, and limitations on who may be addressed. In denouncing the guidelines as overly vague and ambiguous, Institute attorneys have advised City officials that the changes to their meeting procedures violate the letter and spirit of Constitution by imposing obstacles to transparency and citizen engagement.

In calling on the Charlottesville City Council to revoke the rules it has adopted in order to ensure that Council meetings remain a forum for free speech, the Institute warned that if the City is serious about being a leader in the fight for open government, it must demonstrate a commitment to public participation in the democratic process. In 2015, Rutherford Institute attorneys advised the Greene County Board of Supervisors (also in Virginia) against rules adopted governing the open forum public comment period during Board meetings that could be used to censor unpopular but constitutionally protected speech.

The Rutherford Institute, a national nonprofit civil liberties organization based in Charlottesville, Va., defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated and educates the public about threats to their freedoms. The Institute has spent more than 30 years advocating for transparency in government and championing the First Amendment right of the citizenry to speak candidly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.

Sheep Led to the Slaughter: The Muzzling of Free Speech in America

4 Comments

John W. Whitehead

September 01, 2015

“If the freedom of speech be taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—George Washington

The architects of the American police state must think we’re idiots.

With every passing day, we’re being moved further down the road towards a totalitarian society characterized by government censorship, violence, corruption, hypocrisy and intolerance, all packaged for our supposed benefit in the Orwellian doublespeak of national security, tolerance and so-called “government speech.”

Long gone are the days when advocates of free speech could prevail in a case such as Tinker v. Des Moines. Indeed, it’s been 50 years since 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker was suspended for wearing a black armband to school in protest of the Vietnam War. In taking up her case, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Were Tinker to make its way through the courts today, it would have to overcome the many hurdles being placed in the path of those attempting to voice sentiments that may be construed as unpopular, offensive, conspiratorial, violent, threatening or anti-government.

Consider, if you will, that the U.S. Supreme Court, historically a champion of the First Amendment, has declared that citizens can exercise their right to free speech everywhere it’s lawful—online, in social media, on a public sidewalk, etc.—as long as they don’t do so in front of the Court itself.

What is the rationale for upholding this ban on expressive activity on the Supreme Court plaza?

“Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the…impression…of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”

Translation: The appellate court that issued that particular ruling in Hodge v. Talkin actually wants us to believe that the Court is so impressionable that the justices could be swayed by the sight of a single man, civil rights activist Harold Hodge, standing alone and silent in the snow in a 20,000 square-foot space in front of the Supreme Court building wearing a small sign protesting the toll the police state is taking on the lives of black and Hispanic Americans.

My friends, we’re being played for fools. More

Rutherford Institute Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court on Behalf of Marine Who Was Targeted by FBI, Secret Service & Arrested for Criticizing Gov’t on Facebook

1 Comment

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of decorated Marine Brandon Raub who was seized by a swarm of Secret Service, FBI and local police officials and involuntarily committed to a mental institution for a week after posting controversial song lyrics and political views critical of the government on his Facebook page.

In asking the Supreme Court to reinstate Brandon Raub v. Michael Campbell, Rutherford Institute attorneys are challenging a ruling by a lower court judge who characterized the Institute’s concerns over government suppression of dissident speech as “far-fetched.” Moreover, Institute attorneys are urging the Court to establish standards to guide and constrain mental health professionals when they seek to commit individuals and to prevent commitment on the basis of a person’s exercise of his right to free speech.

The Rutherford Institute’s petition for writ of certiorari in Raub v. Campbell is available at www.rutherford.org.

More

The Emergence of Orwellian Newspeak and the Death of Free Speech

3 Comments

RutherfordHeader_2
By John W. Whitehead
June 29, 2015

This commentary is also available at www.rutherford.org.

“If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it…. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information. Then they’ll feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving. And they’ll be happy, because facts of that sort don’t change.” ― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

How do you change the way people think? You start by changing the words they use.

In totalitarian regimes—a.k.a. police states—where conformity and whitehad bokcompliance are enforced at the end of a loaded gun, the government dictates what words can and cannot be used. In countries where the police state hides behind a benevolent mask and disguises itself as tolerance, the citizens censor themselves, policing their words and thoughts to conform to the dictates of the mass mind.

Even when the motives behind this rigidly calibrated reorientation of societal language appear well-intentioned—discouraging racism, condemning violence, denouncing discrimination and hatred—inevitably, the end result is the same: intolerance, indoctrination and infantilism.

It’s political correctness disguised as tolerance, civility and love, but what it really amounts to is the chilling of free speech and the demonizing of viewpoints that run counter to the cultural elite.

As a society, we’ve become fearfully polite, careful to avoid offense, and largely unwilling to be labeled intolerant, hateful, closed-minded or any of the other toxic labels that carry a badge of shame today. The result is a nation where no one says what they really think anymore, at least if it runs counter to the prevailing views. Intolerance is the new scarlet letter of our day, a badge to be worn in shame and humiliation, deserving of society’s fear, loathing and utter banishment from society.

For those “haters” who dare to voice a different opinion, retribution is swift: they will be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes.”

We have entered a new age where, as commentator Mark Steyn notes, “we have to tiptoe around on ever thinner eggshells” and “the forces of ‘tolerance’ are intolerant of anything less than full-blown celebratory approval.”

In such a climate of intolerance, there can be no freedom speech, expression or thought.

Yet what the forces of political correctness fail to realize is that they owe a debt to the so-called “haters” who have kept the First Amendment robust. From swastika-wearing Neo-Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois, and underaged cross burners to “God hates fags” protesters assembled near military funerals, those who have inadvertently done the most to preserve the right to freedom of speech for all have espoused views that were downright unpopular, if not hateful.

Until recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated that the First Amendment prevents the government from proscribing speech, or even expressive conduct, because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. However, that long-vaunted, Court-enforced tolerance for “intolerant” speech has now given way to a paradigm in which the government can discriminate freely against First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum. Justifying such discrimination as “government speech,” the Court ruled that the Texas Dept. of Motor Vehicles could refuse to issue specialty license plate designs featuring a Confederate battle flag. Why? Because it was deemed offensive.

The Court’s ruling came on the heels of a shooting in which a 21-year-old white gunman killed nine African-Americans during a Wednesday night Bible study at a church in Charleston, N.C. The two events, coupled with the fact that gunman Dylann Roof was reportedly pictured on several social media sites with a Confederate flag, have resulted in an emotionally charged stampede to sanitize the nation’s public places of anything that smacks of racism, starting with the Confederate flag and ballooning into a list that includes the removal of various Civil War monuments.

These tactics are nothing new. This nation, birthed from puritanical roots, has always struggled to balance its love of liberty with its moralistic need to censor books, music, art, language, symbols etc. As author Ray Bradbury notes, “There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running about with lit matches.”

Indeed, thanks to the rise of political correctness, the population of book burners, censors, and judges has greatly expanded over the years so that they run the gamut from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. By eliminating words, phrases and symbols from public discourse, the powers-that-be are sowing hate, distrust and paranoia. In this way, by bottling up dissent, they are creating a pressure cooker of stifled misery that will eventually blow.

For instance, the word “Christmas” is now taboo in the public schools, as is the word “gun.” Even childish drawings of soldiers result in detention or suspension under rigid zero tolerance policies. On college campuses, trigger warnings are being used to alert students to any material they might read, see or hear that might upset them, while free speech zones restrict anyone wishing to communicate a particular viewpoint to a specially designated area on campus. Things have gotten so bad that comedians such as Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld refuse to perform stand-up routines to college crowds anymore.

Clearly, the country is undergoing a nervous breakdown, and the news media is helping to push us to the brink of insanity by bombarding us with wall-to-wall news coverage and news cycles that change every few days.

In this way, it’s difficult to think or debate, let alone stay focused on one thing—namely, holding the government accountable to abiding by the rule of law—and the powers-that-be understand this.

As I document in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, regularly scheduled trivia and/or distractions keep the citizenry tuned into the various breaking news headlines and entertainment spectacles and tuned out to the government’s steady encroachments on our freedoms. These sleight-of-hand distractions and diversions are how you control a population, either inadvertently or intentionally, advancing a political agenda agenda without much opposition from the citizenry.

Professor Jacques Ellul studied this phenomenon of overwhelming news, short memories and the use of propaganda to advance hidden agendas. “One thought drives away another; old facts are chased by new ones,” wrote Ellul.

Under these conditions there can be no thought. And, in fact, modern man does not think about current problems; he feels them. He reacts, but he does not understand them any more than he takes responsibility for them. He is even less capable of spotting any inconsistency between successive facts; man’s capacity to forget is unlimited. This is one of the most important and useful points for the propagandists, who can always be sure that a particular propaganda theme, statement, or event will be forgotten within a few weeks.

Already, the outrage over the Charleston shooting and racism are fading from the news headlines, yet the determination to censor the Confederate symbol remains. Before long, we will censor it from our thoughts, sanitize it from our history books, and eradicate it from our monuments without even recalling why. The question, of course, is what’s next on the list to be banned?

It was for the sake of preserving individuality and independence that James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, fought for a First Amendment that protected the “minority” against the majority, ensuring that even in the face of overwhelming pressure, a minority of one—even one who espouses distasteful viewpoints—would still have the right to speak freely, pray freely, assemble freely, challenge the government freely, and broadcast his views in the press freely.

This freedom for those in the unpopular minority constitutes the ultimate tolerance in a free society. Conversely, when we fail to abide by Madison’s dictates about greater tolerance for all viewpoints, no matter how distasteful, the end result is always the same: an indoctrinated, infantilized citizenry that marches in lockstep with the governmental regime.

Some of this past century’s greatest dystopian literature shows what happens when the populace is transformed into mindless automatons. In Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, reading is banned and books are burned in order to suppress dissenting ideas, while televised entertainment is used to anesthetize the populace and render them easily pacified, distracted and controlled.

In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, serious literature, scientific thinking and experimentation are banned as subversive, while critical thinking is discouraged through the use of conditioning, social taboos and inferior education. Likewise, expressions of individuality, independence and morality are viewed as vulgar and abnormal.

And in George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother does away with all undesirable and unnecessary words and meanings, even going so far as to routinely rewrite history and punish “thoughtcrimes.” In this dystopian vision of the future, the Thought Police serve as the eyes and ears of Big Brother, while the Ministry of Peace deals with war and defense, the Ministry of Plenty deals with economic affairs (rationing and starvation), the Ministry of Love deals with law and order (torture and brainwashing), and the Ministry of Truth deals with news, entertainment, education and art (propaganda). The mottos of Oceania: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

All three—Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell—had an uncanny knack for realizing the future, yet it is Orwell who best understood the power of language to manipulate the masses. Orwell’s Big Brother relied on Newspeak to eliminate undesirable words, strip such words as remained of unorthodox meanings and make independent, non-government-approved thought altogether unnecessary. To give a single example, as psychologist Erich Fromm illustrates in his afterword to 1984:

The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as “This dog is free from lice” or “This field is free from weeds.” It could not be used in its old sense of “politically free” or “intellectually free,” since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed as concepts….

Where we stand now is at the juncture of OldSpeak (where words have meanings, and ideas can be dangerous) and Newspeak (where only that which is “safe” and “accepted” by the majority is permitted). The power elite has made their intentions clear: they will pursue and prosecute any and all words, thoughts and expressions that challenge their authority.

This is the final link in the police state chain.

Having been reduced to a cowering citizenry—mute in the face of elected officials who refuse to represent us, helpless in the face of police brutality, powerless in the face of militarized tactics and technology that treat us like enemy combatants on a battlefield, and naked in the face of government surveillance that sees and hears all—we have nowhere left to go. Our backs are to the walls. From this point on, we have only two options: go down fighting, or capitulate and betray our loved ones, our friends and our selves by insisting that, as a brainwashed Winston Smith does at the end of Orwell’s 1984, yes, 2+2 does equal 5.

WC: 1909

 

AFTER SNOWDEN: JOURNALISTS FEEL THE CHILL

3 Comments

strip banner
new-logo25
Rosa Koire

Democrats Against UN Agenda 21

_______________________________________________________________

THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO KNOW WHAT THE POLICIES OF ITS GOVERNMENT ARE, WITHOUT DANGER TO OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, HAS BEEN DESTROYED.
THIS IS UN AGENDA 21.  

________________________________________________________________

In late January, 2014, CSPAN aired a Columbia University School of Journalism panel discussion entitled Journalism After Snowden.  It was re-aired a couple of nights ago and I watched it, spellbound.  Notably, the panel included the editor in chief of The Guardian Newspaper (USA branch) Janine Gibson; the executive editor of the New York Times, Jill Abramson; Cass Sunstein, Obama’s former head of Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and Harvard Law professor who was recently appointed by the President to an NSA review panel.  
4854113The Guardian-USA was the first newspaper to be contacted by Snowden and broke the story.  Janine Gibson, editor in chief, stated that had the information been given to the Guardian in England it would never have reached the public.  The newspaper’s hard drives were destroyed under pressure from the British government.  If she had not collaborated with the New York Times, said Gibson, the information would have been lost.  
New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson stated in as intense a way as possible that journalists are under threat of prosecution if they publish a story because THE GOVERNMENT HAS CHANGED THE RULES FOR A FREE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION.   In our free society a journalist had been willing to go to jail to protect the identity of a source.  This dedication to a free press has been a vital part of our republic.  More

THE POLITICS OF HATE: SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

1 Comment

strip banner

new-logo25 Rosa Koire
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
Intelligence Report, Spring 2013, Issue Number:  149
Active ‘Patriot’ Groups in the United States in 2012

The Intelligence Project identified 1,360 anti-government “Patriot” groups that were active in 2012.

Generally, Patriot groups define themselves as opposed to the “New World Order,” engage in groundless conspiracy theorizing, or advocate or adhere to extreme antigovernment doctrines. Listing here does not imply that the groups themselves advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist.

The list was compiled from field reports, Patriot publications, the Internet, law enforcement sources and news reports.”

Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and the Post Sustainability Institute are on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s list of Patriot groups.  The criteria for making this list are quite interesting.  The SPLC purports to identify hate groups and to advocate for those who are being discriminated against or targeted for violence.  The SPLC mainly focuses on skinhead groups and anti-gay groups but they’re branching out and including us in their scope.  Why?

If you look at what they say above, the criteria for list selection include opposing the New World Order (does SPLC support it?), ‘groundless’ conspiracy theorizing (SPLC refuses to acknowledge objective reality), and advocating or adhering to ‘extreme anti-government doctrines’ (like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?).

There was a time in the past when, as gay people, we might have donated to SPLC.  About 25% of their website is devoted to fundraising for themselves.  They engage in spreading misinformation about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development and are themselves representing the New World Order by targeting groups who would re-erect the guarantees of the US Constitution.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness extends beyond racial and social lines.  Our government exists to protect the individual.  Our rights to free speech, to our property, to our privacy—guaranteed by the Constitution.  The term ‘Patriots,’ according to the SPLC, is now under suspicion, and those who question government tactics and object to subversion, manipulation, privacy invasion, and ‘transformation’ are targeted on their list.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is a fraud and a sham.  Although they have a disclaimer that they don’t imply that we advocate or engage in violence or other criminal activities, or are racist they are fully aware that targeting us on their list may serve to chill our civil rights or turn people against us.  They are engaging in their own brand of hate speech.  It might help their fundraising but it also shines a light on their bias and willingness to go along to get along with liberty-destroying regimes.  The Southern Poverty Law Center purports to have some familiarity with Nazi tactics.  Perhaps too much.
Rosa Koire, ASA Executive Director Post Sustainability Institute

— Rosa Koire, ASA Executive Director Post Sustainability Institute

PostSustainabilityInstitute.org

DemocratsAgainstUNAgenda21.com

SantaRosaNeighborhoodCoalition.com

Group petitions to have secessionists deported

8 Comments

Craig Kirk

_________________________________________________________________

America: I need your help right now!

Please sign the petition On the White House “We The People”  website. People from every state have asked the White House if their state can peacefully Secede from the Union.  The petitions themselves are not enforceable as the president is not the proper person to receive such petitions.  It is congress who must be addressed.

On the same government website your tax dollars pay for, is a group of people who also created a petition asking the government to have those who did sign these secession petitions, to revoke the  petitioner’s citizenship i.e., revoke, deport, imprison, or even worse murdered in secret. This group is converting rights into crimes.

__________________________________________________

This petition below constitutes a felony and an act of political or state sponsored terrorism.

Strip the citizenship of all those who signed petitions to secede from the United States of America

“The United States fought a bloody civil war to decide once and for all to remain a UNITED States of America.

Any person who signs a petition for secession of their state, should be deemed to have forfeited their rights as an American.

The person may select a person on the waiting list to get into this country from another land.  The person who signed the petition is to physically trade places with that person who wishes to be an American.”  Read More

This is a felonious act and an act of political or state sponsored terrorism.

____________________________________________________

Sign my petition now to stop this crime please.

My petition brings the investigation, prosecution, and imprisonment to the fullest extent of law [against anyone] who wants to imprison or deport [anyone] in this context.

Why?  Because the petitions have ”NO” force in law, and its your right to engage in political speech and to dissent. Please read my petition and sign it NOW.

Please help me help those who would be targeted under this terroristic petition against secessionists! Tell everyone to sign it to save the lives of many people.

Thank You!

Craig Kirk: School Of Common Law

also:  legalwars news on Facebook.

___________________________________________

Copy of petition:

Emergency petition to compel federal or state governments to permanently stop all such actions or planned deportation

Know All Men;

This emergency Petition is to prosecute the fullest extent of law, ”ALL” persons whoever for acts of deportation of ”ALL” individuals from defective application for state secession being without enforcement or merit as a matter of law.

This petition is to compel the White House, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Congress, investigate, indict, prosecute imprison the fullest extent, all persons that may cause ”ANY” ”state” of the union or federal government to ”commit” acts of Political Terrorism, State Sponsored Terrorism, deportation or murder against any citizen non-citizen or individual in violation of any ”LAW” for the express benefit of political, economic, racial, or religious gains.

WHEREFORE; Let it be said let it be written, so be it.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/emergency-petition-compel-federal-or-state-governments-permanently-stop-all-such-actions-or-planned/V2QrYQtC

US Government & The politics of fear

17 Comments

New World Reporter

R.F. Goggin/PPJ Contributor

(NWR) – It’s one thing when a governmental law enforcement official in America attempts to convince a U.S. citizen of the host of supposed threats to their safety from alleged terrorist plotters abroad, but when they raise the specter of American citizens becoming a threat to State or local police (and thereby, to everybody else in the country) – as has been reported by the Associated Press via The Washington Post recently, then it’s high time for Americans to wise up to the state of paranoid power-grabbing which has taken root in the highest federal offices of the land. And also to a United States Government of which has forsaken the path of serving the public for something self-motivated or totalitarian in nature.

When a law enforcement officer puts on a badge in any state or city in our country, they run the risk of being physically harmed during any interaction or altercation at all having to do with a United States citizen, period. This, fact of American life – is something that has always been part and parcel of a police job description, or an officer’s duty. Why now, with the American economy in shambles and with growing anti-government sentiment on the rise (by virtue of things such as the ‘Occupy’ movement, and/or the like), should it suddenly become  important for the U.S. Government to emphasize an interest in protecting state or local police agencies? I think I can postulate such a brazenly self-centered and craven reasoning process, easily enough. And only the shortsighted, I would sadly reckon, might somehow underestimate to where such dangerously unprecedented notions are destined to lead. More

In Less than 24 Hours Congress Could Vote to Change the Internet Forever

9 Comments

Source: The Intel Hub

Press Agencies:
The Intel Hub
The Intel Hub Radio Show
The Intel Hub News Network

Tomorrow the House Judiciary Committee is going to vote on H.R.3261, the Stop Online Privacy Act, or SOPA for short. As I have previously outlined, this legislation would destroy the internet as we know it and severely impinge on free speech and the spread of information.

If this passes committee, which all indications say it likely will, it could be voted on by the whole of the House of Representatives at any time.

Individuals and corporations both large and small are stepping up to fight back against the draconian SOPA legislation and the Senate’s sister legislation, the PROTECT IP Act.

However, there is a significant lobby that is pushing back against the tide of freedom and liberty in an attempt to severely restrict the internet.

As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) pointed out in a Congressional hearing, SOPA will restrict non-infringing online content right along with the infringing content the bill is supposedly aimed at combating.

“By contemplating an order that effectively bars others from gaining access to both infringing and non-infringing content, the proposed statute goes beyond appropriate First Amendment free speech protections,” the ACLU said.

The wildly restrictive SOPA legislation would essentially make it impossible for some of the largest websites on the internet to operate in any way that is remotely familiar to the climate we have known.

Any social media website that allows users to freely post content could be shut down at any time if any infringing content is posted on the site.

This means that all of YouTube, all of Twitter, all of Facebook, all free blog hosts, etc. could be forced to close down if a single individual posts infringing content.

This is China-style internet censorship on steroids; it is so astoundingly oppressive that there has been a blatant disinformation war waged against those who seek to keep the internet free.

However, little bits of truth sneak out here and there, with Chris Dodd, head of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and former Senator, letting out a shocking admission which gives a glimpse into the minds of those who support the destruction of one of the last vestiges of true freedom in America.

“When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites,” Dodd said.

A similar sentiment was echoed by Senator Joe Lieberman last year when he was promoting his so-called “internet kill switch” legislation.

“Right now, China – the government – can disconnect parts of its internet in a case of war. We need to have that here too,” Lieberman said at the time. READ MORE

Japan’s reactors are a threat…so we invade libya?

5 Comments

Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2011 All Rights reserved

___________________________________________

 While I would love to believe that we invaded Libya for “humanitarian purposes”, the truth is more likely to be far less noble. 

__________________________________________

Is it just me, or does anyone else out there find it strange that with the nuclear reactors in Japan bellowing out huge streams of smoke, one of them at least in the process of full meltdown and signaling their dwindling stability, and the threat of global radiation contamination, that the UN and our own government chose this time to attack Libya? 

We didn’t attack Tunisia when the people there revolted, and we sure didn’t go into Egypt when those people revolted and we wouldn’t think of attacking Greece as the Greeks rebelled against the thugs running their government, but we will attack Libya under the cover of “protecting humanity” from Ghadafi while the reactors in Japan smolder.  Well when the hell did we get so sanctimonious? I think it was most likely when a few multi-national corporations identified major water and oil resources they would like to hi-jack and Libya refused to co-operate. 

I noticed that when the people of Syria began revolting and “security” forces opened fire on them, we sure didn’t fly to their rescue.  Of course, we were attempting to establish better relations with Syria what with all that oil in their country and of course their strategic location in the mideast that would be of benefit if (when?) we decide to attack other nations in the area. 

“The two were killed when security forces opened fire on Friday on civilians taking part in a peaceful protest demanding political freedoms and an end to corruption in Syria, which has been ruled under emergency laws by President Bashar al-Assad’s Baath Party for nearly half a century.”

But now, perched on the edge of what likely will be a disaster of unthinkable global proportions, we and several other countries under UN orders, attack Libya, cause gosh darn it!  That Ghadafi guy is a bad man and he’s firing on his own people.  Yeah…….like our government has not done that here at home. And our government uses sonic weapons, ADS microwave weapons and a host of other high tech and highly deadly creations intended for no other reason than crowd control of US citizens exercising their constitutional rights.  How quickly we forget Ruby Ridge and Waco.  And how about when our own government used its sonic weapons on protesters at the summit in Philadelphia?  Just to name a few. More

5 Ways DHS Violates the Constitution with Website Domain Seizures

2 Comments

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

Last week, Bryan McCarthy, the 32 year old operator of ChannelSurfing.net, was arrested on charges of criminal copyright infringement.  ChannelSurfing.net was one of the streaming sports sites that had its domain seized by federal authorities shortly before the Super Bowl as part of the “In Our Sites” program, run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  Prior to the seizure, McCarthy reportedly made more than $90,000 from advertisements on his site.

This arrest has once again raised questions about the In Our Sites program, in which the Government has seized thousands of domains accused, but not convicted, of copyright infringement, illegal streaming of sporting events, selling black market goods and distributing child pornography.  Critics ranging from bloggers to individual rights advocates to Senators have questioned the constitutionality of these seizures.

The most serious constitutional issues arise because the Government does not provide any notice to the domain owners prior to seizing them.  One moment, their normal site is up at their web address, the next moment, all that is up at their web address is a DHS/ICE seal.  Without knowing what they have been accused of or having the opportunity to defend their site, the Government has repurposed the owners’ private property.

In order to seize the domain names without notice to the owners, the Government uses a procedure that permits it to bring an action directly against a piece of property used in the commission of a crime–in this case the domain name–rather than the owner.  This type of action (called an “In Rem” forfeiture) is not new.  In the past, the government has used In Rem actions for purposes such as an action against an automobile used to transport bootleg whiskey. READ FULL ARTICLE

Are American Calls For Internet Freedom Two-Faced?

2 Comments

Thursday, February 17, 2011

David Makarewicz is a lawyer specializing in Internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs.  Visit his new blog to keep up with breaking Internet news.

David Makarewicz, Contributing Writer
Activist Post
It was so nice to hear Hillary give a speech, claiming that America stands against global Internet oppression. Words, words, words.  But aren’t her words empty if America is going to act like a digital dictatorship itself?

Dutch blogger Willemien Groot calls the Secretary of State’s words “two-faced.”  Recent evidence suggests that she has a point.

Congress is once again considering modeling itself after bastions of freedom like Egypt by arming the government with an Internet kill switch that continues to draw the ire of free speech advocates.  Also, the Department of Homeland Security has also been on quite the rampage lately, seizing domain names and shutting down websites for merely linking to sites accused of infringing copyright.  Then, as recently as this past weekend, DHS mistakenly suspended 84,000 websites when the government cast too wide a net as it seized domain names accused of child pornography.  No decent person is in favor of child porn, but if the U.S. government continues to play it fast and loose with due process rights, American warnings about Internet oppression will continue to crumble under the weight of their own hypocrisy.

David Makarewicz is a lawyer specializing in Internet law concerning privacy rights and copyright defense for websites and blogs.  Visit his new blog to keep up with breaking Internet news.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DHS Seizes Websites for Merely LINKING to Copyrighted Material

Leave a comment

Eric Blair
Activist Post

Apparently the Department of Homeland Security is now authorized to rewrite and enforce copyright infringement laws.  In a stunning precedent, the recent round of domain seizures to shut down websites that allowed illegal streaming of the Super Bowl also included a few other websites that were seized simply for linking to infringing content. More

THE INTERNET MUST REMAIN FREE

3 Comments

 

By Chuck Baldwin
June 29, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

 “And as far as objectionable material being available to children is concerned, this is what parents are for! Good grief! It is bad enough that the federal government has turned into Big Brother; are we going to allow it to become Big Momma and Big Daddy as well?”____________

The Internet is abuzz with news that a US Senate committee has approved a bill that apparently gives the President authority to shut down the Internet. According to TechWorld.com, “A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.”

The report continues by saying, “The bill, introduced earlier this month [by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Thomas Carper, D-Delaware], would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electric grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.”

See the report here.

A PrisonPlanet.com report says this about the bill: “President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday [June 24] and now moves to the floor. More

Obama Wants to Jail Americans with New Law

2 Comments

By Europe Union Times
June 15, 2010

Foreign Ministry reports circulating in the Kremlin today are warning that an already explosive situation in the United States is about to get a whole lot worse as a new law put forth by President Obama is said capable of seeing up to 500,000 American citizens jailed for the crime of opposing their government.

Sparking the concern of Russian diplomats over the growing totalitarian bent of the Obama government is the planned reintroduction of what these reports call one of the most draconian laws ever introduced in a free society that is titled “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”.

First introduced in the US Congress in 2007 by Democratic Representative Jane Harmon, this new law passed the US House of Representatives by a secretive voice vote, but failed to pass the US Senate, after which it was believed dead until this past week when it was embraced by Obama who became the first American President to name his own citizens as a threat to his Nations security. More

Mounting public rejection of “McCain the Candidate” after submitting S. 3081

2 Comments

Update from: Dan Scott re: S.3081 The Enemy Belligerent Act
 

__________________________________________

April 2nd, Rep. David Vitter a co-sponsor of McCain’s S.3081 legislation, after criticism from liberals and libertarians, withdrew his support. McCain currently is short one necessary co-sponsor. Prudently I must consider Vitter’s withdraw may have been done to (attenuate) mounting public rejection of “McCain the Candidate” resulting from Americans learning about McCain’s insidious legislation. Meanwhile S.3081 lays in wait. More

How Does a Corporation Speak?

2 Comments

By William A. Cohn

 The Supreme Court’s 5 to 4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC giving corporations greater rights to use shareholder money to influence elections is radical, already impacting the November U.S. midterm elections and politics in general. Yet it is only the latest of many expansions of corporate rights over the past 150 years. Let’s step back to consider the most recent fallacy made by the high court in equating corporations with natural persons and citizens. More

Controlling the Ability of People and Organizations to Access the Internet

Leave a comment

Live Link: A NATION BEGUILED

anationbeguiled@morrisbb.net

02 18 10,  by Bob Chapman

Under the guise of “protecting Americans” and choosing itself in so-called “national security,” the current Obama administration wants to be able to control the ability of people and organizations to access the Internet.

This concept on its face seems very harmless and in the best interest of the country, however, having the ability to “turn the Internet off or shutting down sites that Obama considers “dangerous” including particular political groups, individuals or organizations who espouse differing views has far reaching political, financial, moral and legal implications.

Such a policy imposed under Executive Order to control what enters Internet sites and what is shared daily would stifle free speech in direct violation of the First Amendment rights of all Americans.

During the elections in Iran, its citizens using Facebook and Twitter got out 95% of the news from Iran. In America would our social sites be shut down if enough people using them “dared” to question the current political regime in power at any given time? Sitting ominously in the Senate is the Rockefeller Bill S. 773 to takeover the Internet in emergencies. As we all know, once taken over, we will never get it back the way it was before. This is what elitists have in mind for us. More

Blair: US Govt Can Kill Citizens Overseas as Part of ‘Defined Policy’

Leave a comment

ANTIWAR.COM

Director of National Intelligence Tells Congress Americans Can Be Killed Overseas

by Jason Ditz, February 03, 2010

Blair said the comments were intended to “reassure” Americans that there was a “set of defined policy and legal procedures” in place and that such assassinations are always carried out by the book.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R – MI) inquired about the procedures involved, asking what the legal framework was under which Americans could be killed by the intelligence community.

Blair insisted that under no circumstances would Americans be assassinated overseas for criticizing the government, adding “we don’t target people for free speech.” Rather they are subject to assassination when the government decides they are a threat and when they “get specific permission.” Exactly who was giving that permission was unclear.

The question has been increasingly important as the Obama Administration attempts to help the Yemeni government assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born cleric who is not accused of any crimes by the US government. The administration maintains that secret evidence exists linking Awlaki to terrorism.

There seems to be a chilling lack of oversight in the procedure behind these killings, however, Blair’s assurances against politically motivated assassinations aside. The US has killed Americans in overseas attacks before, but only as “collateral damage.” It has never admitted to explicitly assassinating an American citizen before, though it seems that the policy is in place and such killings are only a matter of time.

Email This | Print This |  | Comment | Antiwar Forum//

Know ‘Em! Bloggers’ Rights

4 Comments

A pectacular article from our friends at AxXiom for Liberty.  If you blog or just comment, this article will be invaluable to you for knowing your rights. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/know-em-bloggers-rights/

July 16, 2009 ·

If you’re a blogger, this page is for you.girl_dees

One of EFF’s goals is to give you a basic roadmap to the legal issues you may confront as a blogger, to let you know you have rights, and to encourage you to blog freely with the knowledge that your legitimate speech is protected.

To that end, we have created the Legal Guide for Bloggers, a collection of blogger-specific FAQs addressing everything from fair use to defamation law to workplace whistle-blowing.

In addition, EFF continues to battle for bloggers’ rights in the courtroom:

Bloggers can be journalists (and journalists can be bloggers). We’re battling for legal and institutional recognition that if you engage in journalism, you’re a journalist, with all of the attendant rights, privileges, and protections. (See Apple v. Does.)

Bloggers are entitled to free speech. We’re working to shield you from frivolous or abusive threats and lawsuits. Internet bullies shouldn’t use copyright, libel, or other claims to chill your legitimate speech. (See OPG v. Diebold.) More

Judge Bans Use Of “Illegal” and “Aliens”

Leave a comment

 chenn11

Below is yet another assault on our amendment rights in the United States of America. We, the law abiding citizens can be called every name in the book when supporting OUR LAWS, but when the correct terminology is used to describe law breakers, this judge takes it upon herself to stifle our amendment rights. What next –

undocumented borrowers for bank robbers,

 

transportation specialists for human smugglers – absurd!

 

They are not immigrants either – that term is reserved for people who OBEY the law and enter the US with a green card or then become a legal resident.

 

I will not abide.

(see articles below)

 

THEREFORE………Let It Be Known……………………

TO:

Arizona Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor

Hispanic Bar Association

Arizona State Ethics Board

 

http://www.supreme.state.az.us/ethics/

 http://www.supreme.state.az.us/#

 

I, as an American, reserve my right to “Free Speech” and will continue to

refer to those who enter this Country in an unlawful manner as ILLEGAL ALIENS..

I would refer both Justice McGregor and the Hispanic Bar Assoc. to federal law,

 

US CODE Section 8 sub sections 1324 and 1325 for verification to usage of the term illegal alien,

 

and advise both Judge McGregor and the Hispanic Bar Association to future read  US code,1101(a) 3 which defines an “alien”.

 

The contention that no person is illegal is absurd – their ignorance of our laws and illegal entry into this Country gives them the title – ILLEGAL ALIEN.

 

To date, the United States of America remains a democracy – with individual rights and I will continue to exercise my right of Freedom of Speech. We are not and shall continue to …. combat socialism/communism,  which is exactly what you are advocating in your recent ruling by restricting specific terminology – for a bias agenda.

 

The truth speaks for itself – something You and the Hispanic Bar Association are attempting to stifle – The American People are smarter than either of you give them credit for and our rights will continue to be heard.

 

Sincerely

Ruthie Hendrycks

——————————————————————– 
LAW OF THE LAND
Court
: Quit saying ‘illegal aliens’
But critics say, ‘Let’s call drug dealers undocumented pharmacists’

Posted: November 08, 2008
12:40 am Eastern

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2008/nov/judge-ban-use-illegal-and-aliens

Judge Bans Use Of “Illegal” and “Aliens” 

 

Leave a comment

 

This alert has been sent to the PPj by more than 30 of our readers.  For those of us willing to stand up and be counted this video lets us know what’s in store for us. 

Jailing journalists is unacceptable in a democracy. But that’s exactly
what is happening at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul,
Minnesota.

Award winning journalist and host of “Democracy Now” Amy Goodman was
arrested by St. Paul police while covering a protest outside the
Republican National Convention. Though clearly identified as press,
Goodman was charged with “obstruction of a legal process and interference
with a ‘peace officer.'” Two of her producers were arrested for “suspicion
of felony riot.”

To tell you that this arrest was brutal and upsetting simply doesn’t do it
justice. Watch this video
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/dont_arrest_journalists/
to see for yourself. Then take action.

I just e-mailed the presidents of CNN and NBC News (which oversees MSNBC)
to demand that their networks cover this important story. I hope you will
too.

Please have a look and take action.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/dont_arrest_journalists/?r_by=796-1757566-yDKGCkx&rc=mailto

Thanks!

ISP’s confirm ‘2012: The Year The Internet Ends’

Leave a comment

Fight to save the Internet from becoming just another Pay-Per-View TV experience!

Read the entire article from ‘I Power’ HERE.

Barb

%d bloggers like this: