Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

Wednesday, November 28, 2007 by: Mike Adams

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 http://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: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech Across America

The Bill of Rights

by Howard Zinn, 1991
from the Zinn Reader, Seven Stories Press

A few years back, a man high up in the CIA named Ray Cline was asked if the CIA, by its surveillance of protest organizations in the United States, was violating the free speech provision of the First Amendment.

He smiled and said: "It's only an Amendment."

And when it was disclosed that the FBI was violating citizens' rights repeatedly, a high official of the FBI was asked if anybody in the FBI questioned the legality of what they were doing.

He replied: "No, we never gave it a thought."

We clearly cannot expect the Bill of Rights to be defended by government officials. So it will have to be defended by the people.

If you do a bit of research into the origins of the Bill of Rights- and I had to do some because it is a job requirement of the historical profession-you will find that when the new government of the United States adopted the Bill of Rights in 1791, it did not do so with enthusiasm. The Bill of Rights was a political tool to quiet down critics of the Constitution. A Bill of Rights on paper comforts people. You don't have to take it seriously.

Like that CIA man, you can smile, and say, they're only Amendments.

Full article: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/BillRights_ZR.html

The Problem is Civil Obedience: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/CivilObedience_ZR.html

The End of America video

Naomi Wolf

MAP OF SUPER HIGHWAY ROUTE THRU NORTH AMERICA

IRAQ -- BUSH SIGNS DEAL FOR ENDLESS, UNQUALIFIED, 'ENDURING' MILITARY PRESENCE IN IRAQ

Center for American Progress

November 27, 2007

The New York Times recently reported that the Bush administration has "scaled back" its benchmarks for political progress in Iraq, instead "focusing their immediate efforts on several more limited but achievable goals."

Yesterday, the administration announced one of its goals: an endless, unqualified, "enduring" presence in Iraq. President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "signed the new U.S.-Iraq 'declaration of principles' during a secure video conference Monday morning."

The key principle in the agreement, according to the White House, is that "Iraq's leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America, and we seek an enduring relationship with a democratic Iraq."

Iraqi officials told the Associated Press that "Iraq's government will embrace a long-term U.S. troop presence in return for U.S. security guarantees as part of a strategic partnership." The White House's determination to establish a permanent presence in Iraq contradicts its long record of declarations against permanent bases.

In a press briefing yesterday, White House war czar Gen. Doug Lute said the new long-term occupation plan won't require Congress's approval.

"We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress," said Lute.

Cheney determined to strike in US with WMD this summer

By Webster G. Tarpley
Online Journal Contributing Writer

Jul 23, 2007, 01:04

The greatest threat now is “a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities.” --Dick Cheney on Face the Nation, CBS, April 15, 2007

A few days ago, a group of lawyers from western Massachusetts met with the local congressman, Democrat John Olver. Their request was that Olver take part in the urgent effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver responded by saying that he had no intention of doing anything to support impeachment. He went further, offering the information that the United States would soon attack Iran, and that these hostilities would be followed by the imposition of a martial law regime here.

According to reports in the British press, the Cheney war party has gained the upper hand in the secret councils of the Bush White House, pushing aside the purported hesitations of Miss Rice, Secretary Gates, and the NATO allies to chart a direct course towards war with Iran:

‘The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: "Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo." . . . at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. "The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern," the source said this week. . . ."Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact," said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.’

(“Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran; Military solution back in favour as Rice loses out; President 'not prepared to leave conflict unresolved',” Guardian, July 16, 2007.)

How The Towers Fell