Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
ADL Hate Laws Hate Freedom of Speech
The Anti-Defamation League (as its contrarian euphemism for an organization that does little, if anything, to fight defamation against Arabs and Muslims by rabid Islamo-phobes in the U.S. like Jewish-American Michael Savage) is “again” proposing another anti-free-speech bill disguised as the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act” HR 1966, which makes it a thought crime to “intimidate” and “harass” anyone over the Internet or on the airwaves.
ADL Hate Laws Hate Freedom of Speech
By Dugg Duty
The Anti-Defamation League (as its contrarian euphemism for an organization that does little, if anything, to fight defamation against Arabs and Muslims by rabid Islamo-phobes in the U.S. like Jewish-American Michael Savage) is “again” proposing another anti-free-speech bill disguised as the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act” HR 1966, which makes it a thought crime to “intimidate” and “harass” anyone over the Internet or on the airwaves.
Who is “responsible,” as response for one’s subjective feelings and imaginations of “feeling” intimidated? Does ‘intimidation’ mean to become ‘timid,’ and if so whose fault is it that a person becomes timid (easily frightened, shy, or unable to argue against sound logic)? Are we to suppose that political correctness should be “dictated” by the dictators of laws—because this is really what this law amounts to—the allocation to some of the special the right to dictate what is politically correct to discuss and argue?
And why is it that right-wing Zionists are not timid about continually trying to turn this country into a legalistic regime in which more and more freedom of speech is repressed. Educated Jews know that the antidote to lies and propaganda is “more” un-intimidated free speech to counter those lies and propaganda. Rather it is when a freedom of speech and the right to speak one’s truth threatens various kinds of dictatorship and tyranny that some right wing, fear-mongers choose to “censor” the most important elements of out-spoken-ness by saying they are only suppressing the truly hateful (an abstract concept if ever there was one).
Call 1-877-851-6437 or 1-202-225-3121 to oppose this bill—this is very dangerous legislation. Seeww.truthtellers.org/actionplan to contact people on House Judiciary Committee that is meeting Thursday June 25, 2009 about this bill.
This kind of law is pandering to the worst kind of victimization by stating “… whoever transmits … 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 …”
So who then are the Gods-as-people who shall decide the motives of intentions of others’ speech? Who are the psychiatrists and political psychologists who will arbitrate exactly when speech causes emotional distress to a person—as if it were an “illegitimate” purpose if others happen to feel distress—when distress is internal and subjective?
Well we might then not argue at all since arguing, which sometimes gets heated, can evoke emotional distress in others—irrespective of the topic? For that matter we might stop all prosecution since writing a legal argument and entering it into a computer or recording it is a form of electronic transmission? Perhaps if one were to argue that the Israelis are stomping on Palestinians and torturing them in their prisons—it might cause emotional distress to some who would not rather become “aware” of such worldly realities? Maybe the physical distress of torture and brutality is to be allowed since some Jewish Americans just might feel intimidated and distressed by such an accusation?
Or maybe we are not suppose to discuss the fact that some of the right-wing Israeli and Jewish-American bent played a significant part in propagating the lies that brought us into war with Iraq—a war that would be considered illegal by the Nuremberg trials? Perhaps the mere suspicion that Israeli spies have stolen America’s national security secrets and handed them to others would be too distressing for mere minds of mortals to contemplate—better such facts remain buried and not prosecuted by the chickens of U.S. Congress and the submissive Obama White House? And would most likely be a crime to question any person’s loyalty to another country over loyalty to their own home of domicile? So apparently any pungent accusation or suspicion could be deduced, with a modicum of verbal craft, by the self-appointedly, politically correct, as intimidating and distressing?
So where are the Jerry Spensors of the world, author of how to win an argument every time, when you really need them? Spensor, as a famous lawyer, wrote a great argument of a book on why it is important to have argumentation—unless you want more forms of tyranny and dictatorship—which don’t require any input from anyone—irrespective of their needs or perspectives.
Yet was not it another famous lawyer—Alan Dershowitz, self-appointed lawyer for right-wing Israel, who attempted to suppress the publication of a book criticizing his book—trying one way or another to “Finkelstein” his left-wing Jewish enemy? Yet Dershowitz advises his students to have a good “enemy list” in another of his books—and that would likely include people critical of Israel—but then it is not likely that his writings and behavior is the target of this new anti-free-speech bill had in mind about those who intimidate?
Or was it not right-wing American-Jews like Daniel Pipes’ “Campus Watch” and Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation;s “David Project” and David Horowitz’s “Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, etc., that advocated for suppression of free speech on American campuses if critics of Israel were involved? (see “The New McCarthyism” The Nation November 12, 2007.)
More recently another left-wing American Jewish professor, William Robinson, has criticized Israel’s treatment of Palestinains in Gaza as similar a Warsaw concentration camp, and he is being “labeled” anti-Semitic by right-wing Jews and blackballed to get him ousted from his job. Left to their devised any questions about interpretations of “any” aspect of the Holocaust will also be off limits—especially since it is used to psychologically coerce Americans into accepting Israeli Middle East politics—like another war in the Iran, etc.
And that is exactly the problem—right-wing advocates for Zionism constantly attempts to say that it is extremely wrong and inappropriate to compare any other human experience to what Jews suffered in World War II—that it is hateful to compare the trials and tribulations of sufferings Jews by the Nazis as in any way similar to what other people have suffered—that the persecution of Jews have been victimized so far beyond the pale that whatever is done in the name of Zionism today is “beyond” criticism—even if the critics are Jews themselves.
Granted the evils perpetrated against Jews historically are ghastly but two wrongs don’t make one right—nor do three or four wrongs make one right! So get over it right-wingers if you think you can blackmail and blackball every critic to your form of censorial despotism.
We in the United States of America can “never” succumb to this emotional and political blackmail that is so much of the Zionist strategy to psychologically hamstring our right to free speech. For far too long religions have been used to suppress and repress freedoms. They have been used to persecute, prosecute, kill, imprison, and make war—going back at least as far as the Assyrian’s habit of using religious language to disguise criminal acts of war.
The biggest problem that immigrating Caucasians from Europe brought to America were the many European delusions of Christianity—handed over to pagans by warring Romans, which is based ultimately on psychological terrorism—the brainwashing of people to think that a right-wing God would crucify his own son or would put souls into eternal torture. We have had enough of the “European disease” that was so paranoid of religious persecution that they fought all manner of the establishment of national religion—but still allowed the delusions of religious freedom to foment.
We have had enough of the psychiatric dysfunctional realities of Abrahamic religions and there authoritarian psychology! We will not succumb to the religious terrorism and intimidation of both New and Old Testaments of the Bible. It is time to put a stop to this madness—and if that sounds distressing to some than too bad—because what religion has “intended” historically has been far worse. And should the authors of the Bible be prosecuted for intimidation and distress—maybe that would be the way to go—since they are long gone but we could get quite a lesson of psychology out of it?
It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote:
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt about what parts of them are genuine.”
Worst still, as one only need read Jonathan Kirsch’s “Moses: A Life” to realize that the whole story of Moses is a fraud—an more importantly that the delusion of that God of Moses was a tyrant and a dictator who gave “his” Hebrew people (if you can believe that) the supposed right to kill off the many other peoples who then inhabited Canaan eons ago. There was no “real” God behind the Deuteronomy commands to kill the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Pirizzites, Hivites an Jebusites, etc, (see Deut. 7:1-2). This was pure right-wing propaganda—and the God of the Bible should be “judged” by human rights groups like any other human rights violator.
Granted they did not have human rights groups back then but we ARE NOT going to advocate for a Zionism TODAY based on past historical delusions. Israel is going to be judged by “human” standards today—period. Some have readily acknowledged that the Bible is not historically accurate but still feel that Jews “deserve” to have a Torah State! Well then no doubt the same psychology of Moses, as purported speaker for his God, who say that God says they need to kill off the Palestinians and throw them into the sea? But do two wrongs do not make one right. Does any amount of unfairness justify another proposition for unfairness—in human terms?
There are those that now claim that to criticize the Zionist project is beyond the pale—that it is politically incorrect to question Jews right to have a religious homeland. Wrong—nothing is beyond freedom of speech—that is what it “means” to have freedom of speech—when “no” presumed authority is too high to be questioned and doubted by the soul of man.
The United States and Israel are on collision course of values—we advocate political freedom for “all” citizens—whereas is Israel you need to be Jewish to be considered a real citizen. But it is time to tell Israelis that they need to separate Church and State if they want our American support. President Obama ought behind his rhetoric of Audacity of Hope and put some teeth into his cheerleader suavity—or he’lll end up another looser like Bush towing the Israeli Lobby’s line. It was bad enough he was stupid enough to think there was still a chance at securing an independent state for the Palestinians when Israel has so badly mangled any reasonable re-accommodation of territory—while giving weasel words play thinking the Americans eternal suckers for empty speech. There is a sane and just path and that is to tell Israelis that a Jewish State is not supportable by American values—and if they want to fight it out with others let them do it on their own.
Israelis are no better than the Muslim countries they constantly criticize. Their religion is no more or less humane than other people’s religions—but it has always been a problem that Abrahamic religious fanatics appropriate exceptional loyalty to their deities—even the Romans asked the Christians during the time of their persecution to simply respect the Roman deities—but their maniacal monotheistic religion would have none of it.
Stop religious repression—how many decades and centuries is this war of ideology going to continue when the world needs to address other serious matters? Eric Alterman was right in his The Defamation League when he said the ADL as a “league” does not exist except in the name of Abe Foxman.
This bill is intimidating and distressful. Americans have the right and the Duty to shout their views vehemently and boldly from the rooftops and the mountaintops—as strenuously and vociferously as they can—and too bad if people are timid by it!
P.S. If you feel this “argument” is important feel free to email it to your friends and family while you still have such freedom.
By Dugg Duty
The Anti-Defamation League (as its contrarian euphemism for an organization that does little, if anything, to fight defamation against Arabs and Muslims by rabid Islamo-phobes in the U.S. like Jewish-American Michael Savage) is “again” proposing another anti-free-speech bill disguised as the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act” HR 1966, which makes it a thought crime to “intimidate” and “harass” anyone over the Internet or on the airwaves.
Who is “responsible,” as response for one’s subjective feelings and imaginations of “feeling” intimidated? Does ‘intimidation’ mean to become ‘timid,’ and if so whose fault is it that a person becomes timid (easily frightened, shy, or unable to argue against sound logic)? Are we to suppose that political correctness should be “dictated” by the dictators of laws—because this is really what this law amounts to—the allocation to some of the special the right to dictate what is politically correct to discuss and argue?
And why is it that right-wing Zionists are not timid about continually trying to turn this country into a legalistic regime in which more and more freedom of speech is repressed. Educated Jews know that the antidote to lies and propaganda is “more” un-intimidated free speech to counter those lies and propaganda. Rather it is when a freedom of speech and the right to speak one’s truth threatens various kinds of dictatorship and tyranny that some right wing, fear-mongers choose to “censor” the most important elements of out-spoken-ness by saying they are only suppressing the truly hateful (an abstract concept if ever there was one).
Call 1-877-851-6437 or 1-202-225-3121 to oppose this bill—this is very dangerous legislation. Seeww.truthtellers.org/actionplan to contact people on House Judiciary Committee that is meeting Thursday June 25, 2009 about this bill.
This kind of law is pandering to the worst kind of victimization by stating “… whoever transmits … 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 …”
So who then are the Gods-as-people who shall decide the motives of intentions of others’ speech? Who are the psychiatrists and political psychologists who will arbitrate exactly when speech causes emotional distress to a person—as if it were an “illegitimate” purpose if others happen to feel distress—when distress is internal and subjective?
Well we might then not argue at all since arguing, which sometimes gets heated, can evoke emotional distress in others—irrespective of the topic? For that matter we might stop all prosecution since writing a legal argument and entering it into a computer or recording it is a form of electronic transmission? Perhaps if one were to argue that the Israelis are stomping on Palestinians and torturing them in their prisons—it might cause emotional distress to some who would not rather become “aware” of such worldly realities? Maybe the physical distress of torture and brutality is to be allowed since some Jewish Americans just might feel intimidated and distressed by such an accusation?
Or maybe we are not suppose to discuss the fact that some of the right-wing Israeli and Jewish-American bent played a significant part in propagating the lies that brought us into war with Iraq—a war that would be considered illegal by the Nuremberg trials? Perhaps the mere suspicion that Israeli spies have stolen America’s national security secrets and handed them to others would be too distressing for mere minds of mortals to contemplate—better such facts remain buried and not prosecuted by the chickens of U.S. Congress and the submissive Obama White House? And would most likely be a crime to question any person’s loyalty to another country over loyalty to their own home of domicile? So apparently any pungent accusation or suspicion could be deduced, with a modicum of verbal craft, by the self-appointedly, politically correct, as intimidating and distressing?
So where are the Jerry Spensors of the world, author of how to win an argument every time, when you really need them? Spensor, as a famous lawyer, wrote a great argument of a book on why it is important to have argumentation—unless you want more forms of tyranny and dictatorship—which don’t require any input from anyone—irrespective of their needs or perspectives.
Yet was not it another famous lawyer—Alan Dershowitz, self-appointed lawyer for right-wing Israel, who attempted to suppress the publication of a book criticizing his book—trying one way or another to “Finkelstein” his left-wing Jewish enemy? Yet Dershowitz advises his students to have a good “enemy list” in another of his books—and that would likely include people critical of Israel—but then it is not likely that his writings and behavior is the target of this new anti-free-speech bill had in mind about those who intimidate?
Or was it not right-wing American-Jews like Daniel Pipes’ “Campus Watch” and Charles and Lynn Schusterman Foundation;s “David Project” and David Horowitz’s “Islamo-fascism Awareness Week, etc., that advocated for suppression of free speech on American campuses if critics of Israel were involved? (see “The New McCarthyism” The Nation November 12, 2007.)
More recently another left-wing American Jewish professor, William Robinson, has criticized Israel’s treatment of Palestinains in Gaza as similar a Warsaw concentration camp, and he is being “labeled” anti-Semitic by right-wing Jews and blackballed to get him ousted from his job. Left to their devised any questions about interpretations of “any” aspect of the Holocaust will also be off limits—especially since it is used to psychologically coerce Americans into accepting Israeli Middle East politics—like another war in the Iran, etc.
And that is exactly the problem—right-wing advocates for Zionism constantly attempts to say that it is extremely wrong and inappropriate to compare any other human experience to what Jews suffered in World War II—that it is hateful to compare the trials and tribulations of sufferings Jews by the Nazis as in any way similar to what other people have suffered—that the persecution of Jews have been victimized so far beyond the pale that whatever is done in the name of Zionism today is “beyond” criticism—even if the critics are Jews themselves.
Granted the evils perpetrated against Jews historically are ghastly but two wrongs don’t make one right—nor do three or four wrongs make one right! So get over it right-wingers if you think you can blackmail and blackball every critic to your form of censorial despotism.
We in the United States of America can “never” succumb to this emotional and political blackmail that is so much of the Zionist strategy to psychologically hamstring our right to free speech. For far too long religions have been used to suppress and repress freedoms. They have been used to persecute, prosecute, kill, imprison, and make war—going back at least as far as the Assyrian’s habit of using religious language to disguise criminal acts of war.
The biggest problem that immigrating Caucasians from Europe brought to America were the many European delusions of Christianity—handed over to pagans by warring Romans, which is based ultimately on psychological terrorism—the brainwashing of people to think that a right-wing God would crucify his own son or would put souls into eternal torture. We have had enough of the “European disease” that was so paranoid of religious persecution that they fought all manner of the establishment of national religion—but still allowed the delusions of religious freedom to foment.
We have had enough of the psychiatric dysfunctional realities of Abrahamic religions and there authoritarian psychology! We will not succumb to the religious terrorism and intimidation of both New and Old Testaments of the Bible. It is time to put a stop to this madness—and if that sounds distressing to some than too bad—because what religion has “intended” historically has been far worse. And should the authors of the Bible be prosecuted for intimidation and distress—maybe that would be the way to go—since they are long gone but we could get quite a lesson of psychology out of it?
It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote:
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt about what parts of them are genuine.”
Worst still, as one only need read Jonathan Kirsch’s “Moses: A Life” to realize that the whole story of Moses is a fraud—an more importantly that the delusion of that God of Moses was a tyrant and a dictator who gave “his” Hebrew people (if you can believe that) the supposed right to kill off the many other peoples who then inhabited Canaan eons ago. There was no “real” God behind the Deuteronomy commands to kill the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Pirizzites, Hivites an Jebusites, etc, (see Deut. 7:1-2). This was pure right-wing propaganda—and the God of the Bible should be “judged” by human rights groups like any other human rights violator.
Granted they did not have human rights groups back then but we ARE NOT going to advocate for a Zionism TODAY based on past historical delusions. Israel is going to be judged by “human” standards today—period. Some have readily acknowledged that the Bible is not historically accurate but still feel that Jews “deserve” to have a Torah State! Well then no doubt the same psychology of Moses, as purported speaker for his God, who say that God says they need to kill off the Palestinians and throw them into the sea? But do two wrongs do not make one right. Does any amount of unfairness justify another proposition for unfairness—in human terms?
There are those that now claim that to criticize the Zionist project is beyond the pale—that it is politically incorrect to question Jews right to have a religious homeland. Wrong—nothing is beyond freedom of speech—that is what it “means” to have freedom of speech—when “no” presumed authority is too high to be questioned and doubted by the soul of man.
The United States and Israel are on collision course of values—we advocate political freedom for “all” citizens—whereas is Israel you need to be Jewish to be considered a real citizen. But it is time to tell Israelis that they need to separate Church and State if they want our American support. President Obama ought behind his rhetoric of Audacity of Hope and put some teeth into his cheerleader suavity—or he’lll end up another looser like Bush towing the Israeli Lobby’s line. It was bad enough he was stupid enough to think there was still a chance at securing an independent state for the Palestinians when Israel has so badly mangled any reasonable re-accommodation of territory—while giving weasel words play thinking the Americans eternal suckers for empty speech. There is a sane and just path and that is to tell Israelis that a Jewish State is not supportable by American values—and if they want to fight it out with others let them do it on their own.
Israelis are no better than the Muslim countries they constantly criticize. Their religion is no more or less humane than other people’s religions—but it has always been a problem that Abrahamic religious fanatics appropriate exceptional loyalty to their deities—even the Romans asked the Christians during the time of their persecution to simply respect the Roman deities—but their maniacal monotheistic religion would have none of it.
Stop religious repression—how many decades and centuries is this war of ideology going to continue when the world needs to address other serious matters? Eric Alterman was right in his The Defamation League when he said the ADL as a “league” does not exist except in the name of Abe Foxman.
This bill is intimidating and distressful. Americans have the right and the Duty to shout their views vehemently and boldly from the rooftops and the mountaintops—as strenuously and vociferously as they can—and too bad if people are timid by it!
P.S. If you feel this “argument” is important feel free to email it to your friends and family while you still have such freedom.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Thanks for this timely article. Recently the ADL, SPLC and other watchdog groups have expanded their visual targets from skinheads and KKK to anti-globalist activists and environmental activists who use direct action tactics (like Earth First!), and anyone else who dares to question the legitimacy of Zionist Israeli apartheid policies..
Even with all that watching and spying on people, the ADL, SPLC and their allies were unable to prevent the recent killing in the U.S. Holocaust Musuem. It would be worthwhile for this author and others to look into CIA Operation MK-ULTRA with regards to this so-called "lone wolf" shooter and question whether there could be some enhanced mind control operations from the CIA that causes pre-selected wingnuts to "go off" at certain times, like just before the Iranian elections, when there is some political ties between Ahmadinejad and his questioning of the Holocaust's "official version" and the U.S. right wing conspiracy theorists or anti-Zionists in general..
Thanks to this shooter, anyone who questions or critiques Zionist Israel now can be called an anti-Semite and pushed into the category of potential "lone wolf conspiracy theorist terrorist" much easier, and put on ADL terror watch lists, as if the watching could predict this violent behavior anyway??
People need to be aware of mentally unstable people in their own communities, and cannot rely on statist watchdog groups like ADL, SPLC, etc... to do their work for them. The internal pro-Israeli bias of the ADL/SPLC groups will put them in a position of power above activists who challenge the legitimacy of Zionist Israel's apartheid policies..
This is an earlier article from EF! Journal that details the ADL's switch to spying on activists;
What’s most disturbing is that among the parties responsible for this trend are two of the nation’s largest and most prominent civil rights watchdog groups: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
How did these organizations—which were founded with the express purpose of combating anti-Semitism and white supremacy, and which have enjoyed the strong support of liberals and progressives for decades—develop such a keen interest in the Earth and animal liberation movements? The answer lies in a disappointing, disturbing and largely unknown history of neoconservative political agendas, adherence to a centrist/extremist model of society, unethical and illegal intelligence-gathering activities, cooperation with law enforcement, poor journalism and fear-mongering.
The Anti-Defamation League
Founded in 1913, the ADL’s original mission of combating anti-Semitic slander and libel quickly expanded to include civil rights advocacy. During the 1930s, the ADL initiated the practice for which it has become best known: the monitoring of racist and fascist groups through research and covert intelligence gathering.
Previously a somewhat liberal organization, the ADL began to undergo a marked shift toward a neoconservative political orientation during the 1970s, which resulted in new alliances with the religious and political right, as well as increased cooperation with law enforcement. Additionally, the ADL adopted centrist/extremist theory, a neoconservative social model that clumps together all dissidents from the political right and left—regardless of their diverse and often conflicting agendas—and dismisses them as psychologically unstable people deserving of marginalization and imprisonment.
The disturbing results of the ADL’s blind commitment to centrist/extremist theory came to light in 1993, when a police investigation revealed that the ADL had assembled (perhaps illegally) files on thousands of Arab-American, anti-war, anti-apartheid, civil rights, environmental, labor and social justice groups, including ACT UP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Indian Movement, Food Not Bombs, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Greenpeace and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Although criminal charges were (miraculously) never filed, the scandal harmed the ADL’s reputation and drew attention to its increasingly reactionary and paranoid suspicion of progressives and radicals.
Given this troubling history, it is not at all surprising that the “Extremism in America” section of the ADL’s website currently lists “ecoterrorism” alongside racist and fascist groups like the KKK, the National Socialist Movement and the World Church of the Creator. Moreover, the ADL’s profiles of Earth First!, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) are littered with unqualified references to “terrorism” and “extremism,” as well as assurances that these nonviolent movements will inevitably (and intentionally) begin taking lives.
The examples that the ADL offers to confirm this charge are problematic at best and deliberately misleading at worst. For instance, the ADL states that in 1999, “a British reporter who had infiltrated the ALF the year before with a hidden camera… was abducted by a number of men. They branded the letters ‘ALF’ on his back.”
What the ADL doesn’t say is that, according to the British magazine Green Anarchist, this reporter had made similar claims before, like when he said that he’d been kidnapped and shot in the leg by EF!ers. The idea that two separate movements employed new, unprecedented and never-repeated tactics of kidnapping and torture against the same person is simply too far-fetched to be true. Apparently, the police found Hall’s story unconvincing and promptly abandoned their criminal investigation. In treating this highly suspicious incident as proven fact, the ADL has failed to uphold its mission of assembling “accurate, detailed, unassailable information” and disseminating its findings through responsible and ethical journalism.
The Southern Poverty Law Center
The SPLC has followed a similar path from legitimate anti-racist work to the demonization of radical dissent. The SPLC was founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin in 1971, as a small law firm focusing on civil rights cases. During the 1980s, the SPLC was catapulted into the national spotlight by a series of legal victories that bankrupted KKK and neo-Nazi groups. It quickly became one of the most visible and best funded anti-racist watchdog groups in the US.
Like the ADL, the SPLC has attracted significant controversy. In 2000, Harper’s Magazine published an article by Ken Silverstein—the magazine’s award-winning Washington Editor—alleging that the SPLC greatly overstates the threat posed by hate groups in order to raise more money.
“In 1986,” Silverstein wrote, “the SPLC’s entire legal staff quit in protest of Dees’ refusal to address issues—such as homelessness, voter registration and affirmative action—that they considered far more pertinent to poor minorities, if far less marketable to affluent benefactors, than fighting the KKK.”
http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=314
Even with all that watching and spying on people, the ADL, SPLC and their allies were unable to prevent the recent killing in the U.S. Holocaust Musuem. It would be worthwhile for this author and others to look into CIA Operation MK-ULTRA with regards to this so-called "lone wolf" shooter and question whether there could be some enhanced mind control operations from the CIA that causes pre-selected wingnuts to "go off" at certain times, like just before the Iranian elections, when there is some political ties between Ahmadinejad and his questioning of the Holocaust's "official version" and the U.S. right wing conspiracy theorists or anti-Zionists in general..
Thanks to this shooter, anyone who questions or critiques Zionist Israel now can be called an anti-Semite and pushed into the category of potential "lone wolf conspiracy theorist terrorist" much easier, and put on ADL terror watch lists, as if the watching could predict this violent behavior anyway??
People need to be aware of mentally unstable people in their own communities, and cannot rely on statist watchdog groups like ADL, SPLC, etc... to do their work for them. The internal pro-Israeli bias of the ADL/SPLC groups will put them in a position of power above activists who challenge the legitimacy of Zionist Israel's apartheid policies..
This is an earlier article from EF! Journal that details the ADL's switch to spying on activists;
What’s most disturbing is that among the parties responsible for this trend are two of the nation’s largest and most prominent civil rights watchdog groups: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
How did these organizations—which were founded with the express purpose of combating anti-Semitism and white supremacy, and which have enjoyed the strong support of liberals and progressives for decades—develop such a keen interest in the Earth and animal liberation movements? The answer lies in a disappointing, disturbing and largely unknown history of neoconservative political agendas, adherence to a centrist/extremist model of society, unethical and illegal intelligence-gathering activities, cooperation with law enforcement, poor journalism and fear-mongering.
The Anti-Defamation League
Founded in 1913, the ADL’s original mission of combating anti-Semitic slander and libel quickly expanded to include civil rights advocacy. During the 1930s, the ADL initiated the practice for which it has become best known: the monitoring of racist and fascist groups through research and covert intelligence gathering.
Previously a somewhat liberal organization, the ADL began to undergo a marked shift toward a neoconservative political orientation during the 1970s, which resulted in new alliances with the religious and political right, as well as increased cooperation with law enforcement. Additionally, the ADL adopted centrist/extremist theory, a neoconservative social model that clumps together all dissidents from the political right and left—regardless of their diverse and often conflicting agendas—and dismisses them as psychologically unstable people deserving of marginalization and imprisonment.
The disturbing results of the ADL’s blind commitment to centrist/extremist theory came to light in 1993, when a police investigation revealed that the ADL had assembled (perhaps illegally) files on thousands of Arab-American, anti-war, anti-apartheid, civil rights, environmental, labor and social justice groups, including ACT UP, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Indian Movement, Food Not Bombs, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Greenpeace and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Although criminal charges were (miraculously) never filed, the scandal harmed the ADL’s reputation and drew attention to its increasingly reactionary and paranoid suspicion of progressives and radicals.
Given this troubling history, it is not at all surprising that the “Extremism in America” section of the ADL’s website currently lists “ecoterrorism” alongside racist and fascist groups like the KKK, the National Socialist Movement and the World Church of the Creator. Moreover, the ADL’s profiles of Earth First!, the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) are littered with unqualified references to “terrorism” and “extremism,” as well as assurances that these nonviolent movements will inevitably (and intentionally) begin taking lives.
The examples that the ADL offers to confirm this charge are problematic at best and deliberately misleading at worst. For instance, the ADL states that in 1999, “a British reporter who had infiltrated the ALF the year before with a hidden camera… was abducted by a number of men. They branded the letters ‘ALF’ on his back.”
What the ADL doesn’t say is that, according to the British magazine Green Anarchist, this reporter had made similar claims before, like when he said that he’d been kidnapped and shot in the leg by EF!ers. The idea that two separate movements employed new, unprecedented and never-repeated tactics of kidnapping and torture against the same person is simply too far-fetched to be true. Apparently, the police found Hall’s story unconvincing and promptly abandoned their criminal investigation. In treating this highly suspicious incident as proven fact, the ADL has failed to uphold its mission of assembling “accurate, detailed, unassailable information” and disseminating its findings through responsible and ethical journalism.
The Southern Poverty Law Center
The SPLC has followed a similar path from legitimate anti-racist work to the demonization of radical dissent. The SPLC was founded by Morris Dees and Joe Levin in 1971, as a small law firm focusing on civil rights cases. During the 1980s, the SPLC was catapulted into the national spotlight by a series of legal victories that bankrupted KKK and neo-Nazi groups. It quickly became one of the most visible and best funded anti-racist watchdog groups in the US.
Like the ADL, the SPLC has attracted significant controversy. In 2000, Harper’s Magazine published an article by Ken Silverstein—the magazine’s award-winning Washington Editor—alleging that the SPLC greatly overstates the threat posed by hate groups in order to raise more money.
“In 1986,” Silverstein wrote, “the SPLC’s entire legal staff quit in protest of Dees’ refusal to address issues—such as homelessness, voter registration and affirmative action—that they considered far more pertinent to poor minorities, if far less marketable to affluent benefactors, than fighting the KKK.”
http://www.earthfirstjournal.org/article.php?id=314
Sponsored by Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill;
(Not a Jew among them!)
FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.
(Not a Jew among them!)
FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.
For more information:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111...
Of course anyone with any compassion is opposed to bullying in any form. The bullies themselves are often victims of other bullies, thus perpetuating a vicious cycle of torment, misery, and sadism. Bullying in one form or another has plagued humanity for centuries long before the internet existed..
However, the H.R. 1966 cyberbullying bill will not put an end to bullying, as morally responsible people have tried in vain for centuries to do. The outcome of more surviellence by government monitors only revokes our civil liberties one more step since the post-9/11 Patriot Act and other invasions of our Consitutionally protected rights to privacy..
Here's the details on what H.R. 1966 actually does;
11th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1966
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.
SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.
(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
2
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce 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.
‘(b) As used in this section--
‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and
‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘881. Cyberbullying.’.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1966/show
This all sounds innocent and well meaning in text, however a closer look at the words and possible interpretation of certain words like "coerce" could place political activists in harm's way, claiming that (for example; anti-Zionist postings) the writer was trying to "coerce" young people to be ashamed of being Jewish since Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinians.
In addition, the key word is "or" in this sentence;
"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person,"
and other word open to loose interpretation is "intimidate", as in "those pro-Zionist Israeli right wingers better not show up at the AIPAC protest tomorrow or we'll show them how loud we can get!!" Maybe this is interpreted as intimidation, maybe not? Should someone risk serving two years in prison because some right wing judge interprets this as intimidation? Not in this country so long as we're still following the Constitution and Bill of Rights!!
Some bloggers are expressing their concerns over H.R. 1966;
From Daily Kos;
"That's correct: if you repeatedly make post on this site that intending to harass or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, and do this in a "severe, repeated, and hostile" way -- gosh, did some of us do this to Joe Lieberman or George Allen? -- under a plain reading of this statute you could go to jail for up to two years.
Notice, too, that there's no minimum level of damage in the bill -- it doesn't require that the cyberbullying results in death, or severe emotional harm. All it requires is that the speaker have bad intent. Other behavior swept into this bill, per Eugene Volokh, includes:
3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that's an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he'll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." (I might also be said to be intending to "harass" -- who knows, given how vague the term is? -- but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what "severe" means.
4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don't give me a refund, and I use "hostile" language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is "severe." ...
You get the idea.
Look. There is a lot of horrific behavior that happens online, often anonymously or through the use of pseudonyms. That doesn't require a response of employing federal criminal law and roping in broad swaths of constitutionally protected speech, especially when there are other responses available. Indeed, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress would seem to be well-suited for this sort of case.
No amount of jail time for Lori Drew can compensate the Meiers for their loss, nor can any money through civil suit fully heal that wound, or even come close. I understand the desire to find some way to capture this wretched behavior within the criminal law, but H.R. 1966 is not the answer."
full text found @;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/2/726479/-Not-Every-Bad-Thing-Can-Be-Made-Illegal
From the "right-wing" perspective comes this point;
"The first is ADL’s “anti-bullying” bill, the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” HR 1966, introduced to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on May 26. This bill is as simple and direct as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909, is complicated and obscure. HR 1966 makes it a federal thought crime to intend to “intimidate” or “harass” anyone over the internet or airwaves. Such “cyberbullying” is punishable by harsh fines and up to two years in prison. It does not define what the terms “intimidate” or “harass” mean. Promoted as legislation to protect America’s youth, its real intention is to remove free speech from the internet altogether."
full text found @;
http://dprogram.net/2009/06/23/new-adl-hate-bills-attack-america/
NOTE: The example used in the above text uses religious critique of homosexuality as an example, maybe not the best choice, though the point is ANYONE who is expressing their views online is subject to the loose interpretations of these words "intimidate and harass", and we've all done a little of both in our time online, so maybe every American needs to line up for their orange jumpsuit and head for the chowline..
Once again the Obama administration plays the role of the cool Chi-town cowboy using BOTH hands to lasso and reign in the elements of the "far right" and "far left" that the centrists find the most threatening to the status quo..
As an aside to the MK-ULTRA comment and CIA mind control tactics, look how close the suppression of verbal dissent and the violent fanatic behavior of "lone wolf terrorists" can be once censorship takes hold. Expression of verbal dissent is the ONLY safety valve on the pressure cooker of human emotions that struggle to understand a complex and changing world..
Once we begin the process of labeling an anti-Zionist writer or speaker as an "anti-Semite", we begin the process of isolation, ridicule and outcasting of an individual that would surely lead to more frustration of not only being ignored but also mislabeled as something they are not, then pushing the confused and emotionally hurt individual into the arms of neo-Nazi extremists who choose to take the path of violence, not the path of verbal dissent..
Yes, the ADL is funding and supporting H.R. 1966, and their stance and involvement is certainly for additional aquisition of power and control over the dialogue on U.S./Israeli policies..
BTW, another big vote next week for big oil corporations getting into those Iraqi oil fields, wonder if we can scare people into shutting up and letting the oil corporations have at it? Maybe that is the real reason Obama broke with his campaign promise and extended the stay of U.S. forces in Iraq by almost another year..
OOOPS! Did i just harass the President of the U.S. for being tardy with troop withdrawal from Iraq? Oh no, maybe i'm a secret neo-Nazi skinhead cyberbully who is using veiled threats of violence (intimidation) and harassment to force Obama into early troop withdrawal before the oil corporations can safely get their paws (don't you mean "monkey paws"? that is racist!) on Iraq's oil supply before Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi mounts a legitimate resistance to the heist of Iraqi oil by U.S. corporations!
Under the text of H.R. 1966, demanding early troop withdrawal from Iraq could land me or anyone else suspected of being a "secret skinhead cyberbully" two years in jail!!
However, the H.R. 1966 cyberbullying bill will not put an end to bullying, as morally responsible people have tried in vain for centuries to do. The outcome of more surviellence by government monitors only revokes our civil liberties one more step since the post-9/11 Patriot Act and other invasions of our Consitutionally protected rights to privacy..
Here's the details on what H.R. 1966 actually does;
11th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1966
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California (for herself, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. YARMUTH, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. COURTNEY, and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act’.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.
SEC. 3. CYBERBULLYING.
(a) In General- Chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘Sec. 881. Cyberbullying
2
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce 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.
‘(b) As used in this section--
‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and
‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘881. Cyberbullying.’.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1966/show
This all sounds innocent and well meaning in text, however a closer look at the words and possible interpretation of certain words like "coerce" could place political activists in harm's way, claiming that (for example; anti-Zionist postings) the writer was trying to "coerce" young people to be ashamed of being Jewish since Israel is practicing apartheid against the Palestinians.
In addition, the key word is "or" in this sentence;
"with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person,"
and other word open to loose interpretation is "intimidate", as in "those pro-Zionist Israeli right wingers better not show up at the AIPAC protest tomorrow or we'll show them how loud we can get!!" Maybe this is interpreted as intimidation, maybe not? Should someone risk serving two years in prison because some right wing judge interprets this as intimidation? Not in this country so long as we're still following the Constitution and Bill of Rights!!
Some bloggers are expressing their concerns over H.R. 1966;
From Daily Kos;
"That's correct: if you repeatedly make post on this site that intending to harass or cause substantial emotional distress to another person, and do this in a "severe, repeated, and hostile" way -- gosh, did some of us do this to Joe Lieberman or George Allen? -- under a plain reading of this statute you could go to jail for up to two years.
Notice, too, that there's no minimum level of damage in the bill -- it doesn't require that the cyberbullying results in death, or severe emotional harm. All it requires is that the speaker have bad intent. Other behavior swept into this bill, per Eugene Volokh, includes:
3. The politician votes the wrong way. I think that's an evil, tyrannical vote, so I repeatedly and harshly condemn the politician on my blog, hoping that he'll get very upset (and rightly so, since I think he deserves to feel ashamed of himself, and loathed by others). I am transmitting a communication with the the intent to cause substantial emotional distress, using electronic means (a blog) "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." (I might also be said to be intending to "harass" -- who knows, given how vague the term is? -- but the result is the same even if we set that aside.) Result: I am a felon, subject to the usual utter uncertainty about what "severe" means.
4. A company delivers me shoddy goods, and refuses to refund my money. I e-mail it several times, threatening to sue if they don't give me a refund, and I use "hostile" language. I am transmitting a communication with the intent to coerce, using electronic means "to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior." Result: I am a felon, if my behavior is "severe." ...
You get the idea.
Look. There is a lot of horrific behavior that happens online, often anonymously or through the use of pseudonyms. That doesn't require a response of employing federal criminal law and roping in broad swaths of constitutionally protected speech, especially when there are other responses available. Indeed, the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress would seem to be well-suited for this sort of case.
No amount of jail time for Lori Drew can compensate the Meiers for their loss, nor can any money through civil suit fully heal that wound, or even come close. I understand the desire to find some way to capture this wretched behavior within the criminal law, but H.R. 1966 is not the answer."
full text found @;
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/5/2/726479/-Not-Every-Bad-Thing-Can-Be-Made-Illegal
From the "right-wing" perspective comes this point;
"The first is ADL’s “anti-bullying” bill, the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” HR 1966, introduced to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on May 26. This bill is as simple and direct as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909, is complicated and obscure. HR 1966 makes it a federal thought crime to intend to “intimidate” or “harass” anyone over the internet or airwaves. Such “cyberbullying” is punishable by harsh fines and up to two years in prison. It does not define what the terms “intimidate” or “harass” mean. Promoted as legislation to protect America’s youth, its real intention is to remove free speech from the internet altogether."
full text found @;
http://dprogram.net/2009/06/23/new-adl-hate-bills-attack-america/
NOTE: The example used in the above text uses religious critique of homosexuality as an example, maybe not the best choice, though the point is ANYONE who is expressing their views online is subject to the loose interpretations of these words "intimidate and harass", and we've all done a little of both in our time online, so maybe every American needs to line up for their orange jumpsuit and head for the chowline..
Once again the Obama administration plays the role of the cool Chi-town cowboy using BOTH hands to lasso and reign in the elements of the "far right" and "far left" that the centrists find the most threatening to the status quo..
As an aside to the MK-ULTRA comment and CIA mind control tactics, look how close the suppression of verbal dissent and the violent fanatic behavior of "lone wolf terrorists" can be once censorship takes hold. Expression of verbal dissent is the ONLY safety valve on the pressure cooker of human emotions that struggle to understand a complex and changing world..
Once we begin the process of labeling an anti-Zionist writer or speaker as an "anti-Semite", we begin the process of isolation, ridicule and outcasting of an individual that would surely lead to more frustration of not only being ignored but also mislabeled as something they are not, then pushing the confused and emotionally hurt individual into the arms of neo-Nazi extremists who choose to take the path of violence, not the path of verbal dissent..
Yes, the ADL is funding and supporting H.R. 1966, and their stance and involvement is certainly for additional aquisition of power and control over the dialogue on U.S./Israeli policies..
BTW, another big vote next week for big oil corporations getting into those Iraqi oil fields, wonder if we can scare people into shutting up and letting the oil corporations have at it? Maybe that is the real reason Obama broke with his campaign promise and extended the stay of U.S. forces in Iraq by almost another year..
OOOPS! Did i just harass the President of the U.S. for being tardy with troop withdrawal from Iraq? Oh no, maybe i'm a secret neo-Nazi skinhead cyberbully who is using veiled threats of violence (intimidation) and harassment to force Obama into early troop withdrawal before the oil corporations can safely get their paws (don't you mean "monkey paws"? that is racist!) on Iraq's oil supply before Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi mounts a legitimate resistance to the heist of Iraqi oil by U.S. corporations!
Under the text of H.R. 1966, demanding early troop withdrawal from Iraq could land me or anyone else suspected of being a "secret skinhead cyberbully" two years in jail!!
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$155.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network