Obama May Censor ’Net In Effort to Shut Down ‘Conspiracy Theorists’

By Victor Thorn

Big Brother is running scared, and it’s the double-edged sword of technology that pursues him. Most certainly science can be used to control, but just as powerfully it can be utilized to expose. That’s why the moneyed elite have historically been so horrified of allowing information to be freely released to the masses, and why they so desperately try to conceal it.

The great science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once propounded, “Secrecy is the keystone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy—censorship. When any government or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression.”

Read The Rest Here

Treason or Patriotism: Which Do You Choose?

by by Gary D. Barnett

Lately, I have written several articles for our local newspaper, and because of the subject matter of these writings, I have been involved in much debate about "patriotism." Believe me, it is a frustrating argument and one that gains little reward. When I attempt to define patriotism as I see it, those who think in terms of "it’s my country (government) good or bad," and who blindly support any government policy deemed for the good of the nation as a whole or good for national defense, normally become belligerent. I usually come away from these encounters confused and troubled. Of course I get the expected rhetoric, this from both sides of the isle, that I am a hater of America, am unpatriotic, and a supporter of the terrorists. I have even been asked to leave the U.S., (love it or leave it) or more explicitly, to go to Afghanistan or Iraq where I belong. One local state house representative even accused me of being a hired writer for Osama bin Laden. Wow, imagine that? I guess my belief that Muslims are also human was more than he could tolerate.

The bottom line of this nonsense begs the question: "What is patriotism? If one looks to Webster’s for a definition, the answer would be "a person who loves his country and defends and promotes its interests." I find this definition too broad, too modern, and completely unacceptable; in other words, incorrect. First, a love of country cannot and does not mean a love of state or a love of government. It does not mean agreeing with anything and everything that the state does outside of protecting the inherent rights of individuals. Actually, self-interest, not collectivism, is the basis of liberty. Secondly, defending and promoting the country’s interests could only be proper given that in doing so, no individual or group of individual’s rights are violated in any manner. This would include the rights of any and all people on earth, not just those domiciled in America. So, with this in mind, it should become clear to most that patriotism has more to do with dissent and criticism of the state than it has to do with anything else.

Our Founders, although far from perfect, were for the most part patriots, and were very aware of the importance of supporting and fighting for freedom and independence, not supporting and fighting for the country or state apparatus. There is a distinct difference. While this attitude was not as prevalent among all the Founders, especially the Hamiltonians, and was more the lynchpin of the anti-federalists, it was still the primary underlying attitude of the day.

With these things in mind, I would define patriotism as the defense of liberty; and at all costs, nothing more and nothing less. Ron Paul has defined patriotism as "that effort to resist oppressive state power." His definition and mine are certainly mutually supportive. What patriotism is not is saluting a flag, swearing allegiance to the state or government, or supporting state aggression. Actually, "allegiance" (as in pledging allegiance) is defined by Webster’s as "The loyalty that citizens owe to their country (or subjects to their sovereign)." According to Dictionary.com, it is "the loyalty of a citizen to his or her government or of a subject to his or her sovereign." "Sovereign" means: A monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler." This is the reason I absolutely refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance back in high school, and have never uttered those detestable words since.

What if the modern definitions of patriotism and treason were reversed as I think they should be? Those who are now considered to be patriotic would be exposed as traitors, while the rest of us would be seen as patriots. If real patriotism is the defense of liberty as I claim, then how should those who support tyrannical government action be labeled? Since all government action is force, government in my opinion is the antithesis of liberty. If this is so, then it stands to reason that support of the oppressive state apparatus must be treason. What else could it be? For this to be accepted, a whirlwind of confusion will ensue. Just consider that if I am correct, then most all those who now think they are one are actually the other. What a turnaround. I think I would like to live in that type of environment; one where those supporting government and the state are considered traitors, while the rest of us are properly considered patriotic. What a wonderful world that would be.

For the most part today, those like Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly and other neo-cons, as well as many conservative Republicans and Democrats think patriotism is blindly supporting the killing, maiming, displacing and destroying of any and all who stand in the way of U.S. hegemony. Now, with Obama not only continuing but advancing the Bush Doctrine, the Democrats and "liberal" Obama-supporters will be forced to go along with this evil behavior or will have to break away from their beloved president and "savior." My hope (not expectation) is that the latter wins out.

The realization that patriotism has to do with resisting state power, not supporting it, will only take root when the many decide not to be serfs swearing allegiance to their sovereign, but instead decide to fight to be free!

Source: Lew Rockwell

Why do you trust government? Have you no Patriotism?

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington



All of the abuses listed in the video are real. Bush created them, and Obama has now moved to extend and expand those abuses. Rest assured, more are on the way, and many are here that we do not even know about.

ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU INSIST ON PUTTING YOUR "BLIND TRUST" IN GOVERNMENT, ITS REPRESENTATIVES, OR BUREACRACIES AND AGENCIES? How do you go on claiming patriotism and quoting the founding fathers, while you ignore the numerous and repetitive warnings from them to keep government under an ever vigilant watchful eye? Do I think that every individual in government is bad? Of course not. However, we seem to fail to realize that government is a beast ever yearning to grow all-powerful, despite the intentions of those who make up its many offices. As history shows, governments always find their way to that end.

Sadly, it is partisanship and media-created cults of personality that largely facilitate this. I sincerely hope that you all wake up and consider the consequences of letting your emotions lead your politics. Thanks to this, and the other half of Americans asleep in front of American Idol, we now serve a fearful master.

Having given this some thought, and upon reflection of the founding fathers quotes concerning government, I have this to say:

Why do you insist on seeing government as a benign force, especially if your guy is in office? It is a creature of such an untrustworthy nature, that it must be set into bondage and bound in chains at the very moment of its birth. If at any time during its life it becomes freed of those chains, it will most assuredly set about on a horrible path, destroying everything that is good and just, continuing on until, having destroyed society and freedom, it ultimately destroys itself.

Community College in California Suspends Four Professors Without Explanation Following Peaceful Protest

Inside Higher Ed reports that four faculty members at Southwestern College, a San Diego community college, were suspended without explanation following their participation in a peaceful student protest over state budget cuts that would eliminate over 400 of the school's courses. The faculty union—whose current and former president were among those suspended—is demanding a hearing, which the college must provide within seven days.

Inside Higher Ed's Scott Jaschik writes:

Southwestern officials could not be reached to explain why they took this action. The college's spokeswoman was recently laid off and she has not been replaced. The college's president, Raj Chopra, is reportedly on vacation and his e-mail reply says that he will be off campus until November 13. Chopra's executive assistant gave local reporters a statement that said that the reason for the suspensions could not be made public, and that "the college shares our students' concerns about reductions in state funding for the college. The college respects, values and is committed to freedom of expression."

Philip Lopez, an English professor who is president of the faculty union, said that there is no other possible explanation for the suspensions except the rally. "Nothing else happened the day before," he said.

Despite the school's vague, noncommittal statement, Southwestern's actions certainly do not indicate that the college is committed to free expression.

Source: FIRE

Europe says Freedom of Speech is VERBOTEN!

European court: Calls for Israel boycotts are unlawful discrimination

On Thursday, the Council of Europe's European Court of Human Rights upheld a French ruling that it was illegal and discriminatory to boycott Israeli goods, and that making it illegal to call for a boycott of Israeli goods did not constitute a violation of one's freedom of expression.

The Council of Europe is based in Strasbourg, has some 47 member states and is independent of the European Union. The court is made up of one judge from each member state, and the rulings of the court carry moral weight throughout Europe.

On Thursday the court ruled by a vote of 6-1 that the French court did not violate the freedom of expression of the Communist mayor of the small French town of Seclin, Jean-Claude Fernand Willem, who in October 2002 announced at a town hall meeting that he intended to call on the municipality to boycott Israeli products.

Jews in the region filed a complaint with the public prosecutor, who decided to prosecute Willem for "provoking discrimination on national, racial and religious grounds." Willem was first acquitted by the Lille Criminal Court, but that decision was overturned on appeal in September 2003 and he was fined €1,000.

His appeal to a higher French court was unsuccessful, and as a result he petitioned the European Court of Human rights in March 2005, saying his call for a boycott of Israeli products was part of a legitimate political debate, and that his freedom of expression had been violated.

The court, made up of judges from Denmark, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Macedonia and the Czech Republic ruled that interference with the former mayor's freedom of expression was needed to protect the rights of Israeli producers.

According to a statement issued by the court on Thursday, the court held the view that Willem was not convicted for his political opinions, "but for inciting the commission of a discriminatory, and therefore punishable, act. The Court further noted that, under French law, the applicant was not entitled to take the place of the governmental authorities by declaring an embargo on products from a foreign country, and moreover that the penalty imposed on him had been relatively moderate."

With the court packed with members from Zionist occupied states like Germany, France and Denmark, the opinion of this kangaroo court was a foregone conclusion.

Between England mandating that Holocau$t™ specialists be in every secondary school, laws in at 11 European countries that forbid questions about the Holocau$t™ and now this, Europe is just another appendage of the ZOG.... Zionist Occupied Globe.

Source: The Truth Will Set You Free

The policing of protests has to change

Today's report shows that, following G20, police don't just need to change their tactics but their whole attitude to political protests

The highly critical report into the policing of the G20 demonstrations makes it clear that it is not just the tactics used by the police that must change but the whole attitude to political expression on the streets.

"As a police service," said Chris Allison, assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police, we have clear duties under the law: to facilitate protest." You will find many senior police officers who say the same, but it is amazing that it took the death of Ian Tomlinson and more than 250 complaints about the G20 operation, including 50 of using excessive force, for this to be articulated in public so clearly.

Allison says he wants to move forward – code that asks people to forget what happened. That won't be possible until we see demonstrations policed with a respect for those expressing their legitimate views. Kettling is clearly an inflammatory tactic, which was responsible for a large amount of the trouble and violence. Despite hard lobbying from senior officers, that must end.

The atmosphere over the G20 summit wasn't helped by a media operation, which predicted violence ahead of the demonstrations and encouraged police officers to think that confrontation was inevitable. This was no doubt designed to deter people from attending, but what it may have done was allow certain police officers to believe that they had the full support of the government whatever they did. This predictive briefing must also end.

At the G20 demonstrations, it certainly looks like some of the rights laid down in the Human Rights Act were breached – those concerning freedom to assemble and protest, and of course privacy. One of the more sinister activities of the modern police is the collection of data and images from Forward Intelligence Teams, which seem to act in an intrusive and overbearing manner. As the Panorama programme, Whatever Happened to People Power, showed last night, Forward Intelligence Teams are filming people who attend perfectly legal meetings and political protests. Often they are collecting their car numbers so that individuals can be tagged on the ANPR system for future monitoring. This must also end.

Today's report, Adapting to Protest (pdf), by Denis O'Connor, the chief inspector of constabularies, is welcome. A key sentence is, "What the review [of policing protest] identifies is that the world is changing and the police need to think about changing their approach to protest." That must be evident after the large number of citizen journalists filmed the police and, in the case of Ian Tomlinson, acquired vital evidence concerning his death.

The police have to understand that every action they take on these occasions is likely to be recorded. They cannot simply close down the cell phone network or interrupt the web as the Iranian and Chinese authorities have done over the last few weeks. In Britain, there is a new generation of protesters who are sophisticated, know their rights and are adept at using modern technology and the internet. To police a demonstration on climate change in the same way as you would the industrial troubles of the 80s is clearly inadequate, particularly as climate change demonstrators have the express support of Ed Miliband, the energy and climate change secretary, who has said that they were essential to maintaining pressure on the government.

It is essential the police bring themselves to an understanding of the legitimate aims of demonstrators, who in most cases could not be more honourably motivated.

Source: The Guardian

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GERMANY AND IRAN? NOT MUCH!

By My Hate Speech
We had a good laugh today when we read an article posted on Yahoo News, "Merkel likens Iran to repressive East Germany." Of course it was her attempt to deflect what really goes on Germany today by reminding her own nation's sheeple of how good things are, in comparison to the former East Germany, and the current situation that unfolded in Iran last week. If you are aware of people such as Ernst ZUndel, Germar Rudolf, and others you may allready understand. As far as we were concerned the articles title could have been changed to something like, "Whats the Difference between Germany and Iran." Well lets see where this goes.

See if you can guess which country commits the following actions against its people.

What is the country, is in close lead for the harshest censorship laws, after China and North Korea?

What country is it that is proud of conducting more than 10,000 criminal prosecutions against persons for having committed peaceful "thought crimes"?

What country is it where the authorities declare that half of their population deserves to be ostracized for harboring political views?

What country is it where the head of state asks for children to spy on their parents and parents to spy on their children to make sure they do not harbor unwanted political views?

What country is it where even the mainstream media admit that this country is in a state of hysteria while persecuting political dissidents?

What country is it where members of certain political opposition groups considered constitutional can nevertheless be deprived of some of their civil rights?

What country is it that has a huge spy agency designed to snoop on opposition groups?

What country is it that has institutions designed to conduct political trials?

What country is it that prosecutes defense lawyers if they try to introduce exonerating evidence on behalf of their clients?

What country is it where judges are threatened with prosecution because they did not punish political and historical dissenters harshly enough?

What country is it that hides from its citizens, which media are outlawed, so that one cannot possibly know whether or not one commits a crime when distributing such media?

What country is it where authors, editors, publishers, printers, wholesalers, retailers, importers and exporters, warehouses, and customers buying more than two copies of a certain medium can be prosecuted for producing, stocking, importing/exporting, distributing dissenting political and historical literature?

What country is it where well-founded, heavily footnoted books on political and historical topics, authored by academics with plenty of credentials, can be confiscated and burned by the authorities?

What country is it that sends a historical dissenter to prison for more than two years just because he published peaceful, scholarly historical material?

What country is it where a professor criticizing internationalism can be kicked out of his job, harassed, prosecuted and driven into suicide?

What country is it where a history teacher is sent to jail for uttering historical dissent in a private letter to a high-profile personality?

What country is it where a highly renowned historian writing a well-founded book of his country's history can be threatened with prosecution because what he found out is not liked by the authorities?

What country is it where a judge, writing a well-founded, but highly controversial book on historical topics, sees his book confiscated and burned, his pension cut, and his PhD title withdrawn as a result of this?

What country is it where a professor who writes his disbelief about certain historical events in a footnote, written in Latin, in a scholarly anthology can be prosecuted and threatened with jail?

What country is it where people can get fined for raising an arm to wave their hands at a person?

What country is it where somebody raising his country's flag would be harassed by his neighbors for being an extremist?

What country is it where a teacher suggesting that all students should sing the national anthem first thing every morning would lose his job for being an extremist?

Had enough? We have. We could go on but we just get angrier and angrier. If you guessed Iran you would be only partly right. If you guessed Germany, and we are not talking about former east Germany or Nazi Germany, but rather todays modern Germany, you would be 100% correct.

So what is the difference between Germany and Iran. Well Germany claims to be a Democracy, while Iran does not. Don't you just love democracies.

The Role of “The People” in Protecting Inalienable Rights

It is interesting to know that many of the attendees at the Constitutional Convention held in 1787 were OPPOSED to including a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Why would this be so? The chief concern was that if a written bill of rights were included, the people would, over time, think that these rights were the ONLY rights they had. They were wise enough to know that the people would not understand how vast this body of “inalienable” rights was, and would therefore allow the government (especially the federal government) to dictate, and invade, the sacred domain of self-government that was to remain with the people.

As a result, the Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution, but was later introduced by James Madison in 1789 to the First United States Congress as a series of amendments to the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights, which are now defined as the first ten amendments to the Constitution, are understood to protect such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Also included (among others) are the freedom of assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, and protections against unreasonable search and seizure. It is critical to understand that this in no way limits the extent of the rights of “the people.” What has been generally lost is an understanding of the purpose and meaning to the 9th Amendment which states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Obviously, the founders were referring to these other “unspoken and unwritten” rights which the people possessed, even if the Bill of Rights did not explicitly detail those rights.

In addition, “the people” (that is us) have lost an understanding of our role in the governing process. An understanding of the purpose and intent of the 10th Amendment is also critical to understand the “vision” of the founders. The 10th amendment states:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Therefore, there has existed, and still exists, a vast realm of rights (also referred to as “natural rights”) that we, the people, possess that are not defined by the Constitution or its amendments. In order to gain an understanding of these rights, let me ask a few questions about only one of the important areas of our lives, our physical health.

Despite no specific mention in the Constitution or its amendments, do humans have an individual right to choose their form of medicine or medical treatments? Do we have an individual right to choose “alternative” forms of medicine (such as Native American medicine, ancient Chinese medicine, or ancient Ayurvedic medicine, as examples? On the other hand, can we be forced to only accept what our government states is “legal” medical treatment according to current governmental regulations? Does the Federal government have any constitutional authority to even speak on the subject?

A study of the history of “acceptable” medicine in this country reveals that “chiropractic” treatments were for many decades “illegal,” as government authorities (dominated by the American Medical Association) had not yet deemed it “safe.” Some of the greatest breakthroughs in medical history were not “legal” according to existing governmental authorities. This reality is even more evident today as new breakthroughs in alternative medicine are being discovered every day. Does it make sense to allow a government bureaucracy (which is obviously subject to control by special interest groups) to make such an important decision for YOU, as your choice of medical treatment? Or is this potential life or death decision part of “the peoples” inalienable rights to make choices for themselves, without having to resort to “permission” from some government authority?

Hopefully, this discussion will help to clarify how we, the people, must not allow governments to invade those sacred realms of personal decisions and responsibilities, collectively referred to as our “inalienable rights.” In upcoming articles I will continue to uncover how the Founders were attempting to give us our freedom, if only we would accept it.

Source: 10th Amendment Center

When Did We Lose the First Amendment?

The First Amendment to our Constitution seems to have disappeared. It appears we lost it on June 27, 2009.

In an LA Times interview with California State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass is asked the question, “How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?”

The Speaker answers with this gem…

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

Its unfair… Its terrorism. Oh yes we don’t want competition for these jobs of running the state of California and we certainly don’t want any Constitutional Ballyhoo.

Ok for all you Constitutional slackers let’s look at the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It appears that Bass doesn’t believe in the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; a right guaranteed by one of the most powerful documents ever created.

There’s a lot of stupidity and tyranny locked into those few words. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards. Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society. Politicians do not acquire lordly status when they go to the Assembly, or anywhere else. The Hot Air Blog

How the hell is it that our “leaders” don’t understand the foundation of the Government they work for? I guess it’s because America aka the voters are so caught up in non-important matters as to ignore the particularly important ones.

Let’s just look at the last week. TV News Devotes 28 Hours to Michael Jackson; 93% of Cable Airtime. While the media was eating up Michael Jackson’s death they failed. The media missed Iran having a major upheaval over a tainted election. Congress is working on the largest tax of all time, a tax that will kill our economy. Obama is attempting to spend Trillions of dollars on social programs like government healthcare insurance. Many important issues are being swept aside by the mainstream media and in turn our 2 second attention spans and a society that is showing signs of missing a moral compass are not monitoring what is important to this country.

No one is watching our political leaders. Our political leaders are as confused as anyone as to right and wrong. Our leaders choose to cheat, lie and do whatever with impunity. We see failure to pay taxes, failure to promises and committments including family bonds. We as a society have lost our ability to choose right from wrong. We have become confused as to what is what. Our societies moral compass is broken. Unfortunately if we don’t change, we will find bondage as the country as we are crushed under a massive debt created by a failure to choose good from evil.

Source: Erins's World

MPs condemn G20 police demo tactics

MPs have warned Britain's police chiefs that they must rethink the controversial tactic of "kettling" participants of mass demonstrations.

Members of Parliament's home affairs committee said that it was not acceptable to impose a blanket ban on movement and that peaceful protesters should be allowed to leave.

The findings were contained in a report published by the committee into the G20 protests in the City of London.

More than 35,000 people took to the streets as world leaders met over two days at the beginning of April.

The police have endured a barrage of criticism in the aftermath of the death of newspaper seller Ian Tomlinson, who was hit and pushed to the ground by officers during clashes.

Independent investigators have launched several inquiries after footage of officers lashing out at protesters was caught on camera.

MPs said that images of so-called distraction tactics - shows of controlled violence against hostile individuals - shocked many and could undermine public trust.

They added that "urgent action" was required to ensure officers display identification at all times. Those who do not must face the "strongest possible" disciplinary measures, they said.

Members said that they were also concerned that untrained and inexperienced officers were left in a "highly combustible atmosphere" at the front line of the protests.

The committee added that police should not spend money on water cannons and other equipment to create distance between them and protesters. They said that the money could be better spent on training and planning, adding that police organisers must also work harder to communicate with protest organisers and the media.

Stop The War Coalition convener Lindsey German said: "Kettling is clearly unacceptable and, if it is not already illegal, it should be. The police are treating people like criminals when they have not committed any offence," she said.

Committee chairman Labour MP Keith Vaz said that the basic principle that the police must remember is that protesters are not criminals. The police doctrine must remain focused on allowing protest to happen peacefully, he said.

"In many ways, this was a large protest which passed off remarkably well. But it is clear that concerns about the policing of the G20 protests have damaged the public's confidence in the police and that is a great shame.

"The ability of the public and the media to monitor every single action of the police through CCTV, mobile phones and video equipment should mean they take even greater care to ensure that all their actions are justifiable.

"It is unacceptable for officers not to wear identification numbers at such events and any officers found to be deliberately removing their identification should face the strongest possible disciplinary measures."

Source: The Morning Star

Talk Show Hosts May Be Accomplices Under ADL's Hate Bill

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act HR 1966 which has passed the Congress by overwhelming margins is now facing hearings in the Senate. There are already similar hate crime laws in place, however, this bill imposes much stronger federal enforcement, which is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. It grants greater power to federal prosecutors to prosecute hate crime laws by prosecuting those who have been found innocent by local or state courts. The current bill will extend special privileges to gays and transgender individuals that are currently only granted to ethnic and religious minorities. The most dangerous part of the Bill which is a direct assault against the First Amendment is that it allows for the prosecution as accomplices in a hate crime for talk show pundits that the person who commits the alleged crime claims to influence their actions.

Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

Reverend Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network says that "this means that if any pastor, talk show host or guest, or anyone communicating on radio or the internet is repeatedly “hostile” to the practice of homosexuality and “intends” to cause “substantial emotional distress” in homosexuals, leading to repentance, he is guilty. The speaker doesn’t even have to succeed in causing such conviction for sin, even though he will be especially guilty if he does. In either case, the federal government is empowered under this bill to invade any state to prosecute the “bully” of the airwaves."

This Bill is the first major step to stripping away our rights to freedom of speech in the 1st amendment. Recently the Plains State ADL Director denounced the 1st Amendment by saying that "freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence."In many western nations, an individual can be prosecuted by the government for certain speech.

Though we still have the First Amendment we are headed in that direction of Europe and Canada where people can be prosecuted for thought crimes. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have aggressively promoted hate crime legislation. These organizations have endorsed Europe and Canada's policies on prosecuting what they deem as hate speech. The ADL openly advocates for their model anti-hate law. In 1988 the ADL gave out an award to law student Joseph Ribikoff for writing a proposed hate crime bill that would criminalize hate speech against gays and minorities.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ADL Washington counsel Michael Lieberman spoke in support of the Hate Crimes Bill. "We have no illusions about this legislation," Lieberman testified. "We know that bigotry, racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism cannot be legislated out of existence. A new federal law that finally addresses all victims of hate crimes will not eliminate them."

Source: LA Ron Paul Examiner

ACLU threatens school dist. if students not forced to attend assembly

In the town of Big Bear Lake, CA, family advocates are crying foul over recent comments by a school superintendent who derided parents seeking to opt students out of a presentation orchestrated by the ACLU and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).

The school assembly (presentation) was prompted by an incident last November when high school authorities asked a student to change her tie-dyed shirt that read "Prop 8 Equals Hate." After the ACLU threatened the school district, the Superintendent agreed to force high school students and teachers to attend a forum about student speech and "nondiscrimination." The ACLU then apparently enlisted the Anti-Defamation League to speak at the forum.

In an e-mail to attorneys at the ACLU, the Superintendent of Bear Valley Unified School District, Carole Ferraud, sought help to prevent a parent from opting his student out of a school assembly discussing, somewhat ironically, student free speech and name-calling. The ADL school assembly discussed a "Pyramid of Hate" that pointed to "non-inclusive language" as a precursor to genocide. The assembly also pushed acceptance of controversial hate crimes laws and other "anti-bias" efforts seen by many parents as a politically-correct cover for promotion of alternative lifestyles, especially homosexuality.

Superintendent Ferraud complained to the ACLU, "I have a parent who wants to opt his student out of the presentation. We explained that parents can only opt their children out of sex education and he is asking to see that in writing. Ugh .. small minds!"

The e-mail was unearthed by the Pacific Justice Institute as part of an ongoing investigation. PJI staff attorney Karen Milam, who heads PJI's Southern California office, commented,

"It's telling that school officials cozy with the ACLU preach tolerance for certain politically-correct groups but slam parents with religious or moral convictions. If free speech means anything, it is the right to dissent from government indoctrination. It sounds like school officials - not students - need a lesson in respect."

Source: The Examiner.Com