International Extortion Remembrance Day

Bankers fund all sides of conflicts, promote war and people die. An estimated 60 million or more died in WWII alone. There were maybe 160 million killed in wars and genocides in the 20th century although that number is just an educated guess from many sources. One was too many.

For all of this carnage for the profit of an elite few there is only one group of 'sacrificed' people who get their own international day of remembrance, the most publicity and funding. There's only one 'holocaust' that really matters and that's for the 'chosen ones' and their magic 6 million number.
 
The UN designated January 27 as the International Holocaust Remembrance Day  in 2005 "to keep the memory alive in a bid to prevent future acts of genocide." This was in the middle of the Iraq war genocide of well over a million civilians for the benefit of the U.S. but mainly for Israel. Hypocrisy at best.

There are more 'holocaust' museums in the world than I care to count. The one in Washington DC costs taxpayers nearly $50 million a year. Any of those budget/deficit cutting reps in Congress calling to eliminate this? I didn't think so.

Holocaust education in the public schools of the U.S. is big business.  Some states require it by law, most defer to those who scream 6 million the loudest. The jewish holocaust is a new religion not to be blasphemed against.  No state schoolbook in the country mentions the holocaust of Germans after WWII was over. The holocaust of Native American Indians is not taught as such. The holocausts of Stalin and Mao are glossed over as insignificant compared to that of the jews.

No surprise that  Google has partnered with Israel’s Yad Vashem museum to keep the spin alive as they also appear to be partners with the NSA. Go with the money, eh Google.

Reparation/extortion paid to WWII jews and to Israel estimates vary but I think it's safe to say that it's more than all other war time reparations paid to individuals put together. Sort of. Much was stolen and taken by lawyer's fees.

No other event in history has to have Western world  laws that make it a crime to question the numbers or the details. Ernst Zundel is the most dramatic example of the persecution of this 'thought crime.'  Even where there are no laws against free speech, groups such as the ADL make it their purpose to demonize those who just ask the questions. If the planned U.S. internet censorship comes to be you can bet holocaust revisionists will be near the top of the list to be banned.

Now it's becoming slanderous to even use certain words in unacceptable ways. Holocaust and Nazis are nearly trademarked terms that can't be used to describe anything or anyone else outside the realm of how some jews want them used. Even the degenerate media propagandist Glenn Beck is feeling the wrath of the rabbis for non-kosher use of the words in a $100,000 full page ad in the WSJ calling for his boss Rupert Murdoch to 'sanction' him.  This is part of the the continuing attempt to control the words to control the masses.

The days of jews crying victim at every turn and the world nodding in agreement are coming to an end. Many in the world already see through the lies. The extortion racket of international banking and corrupt governments with their wars and genocide and thefts must end.  It's coming down to us or them. One fact is that we outnumber them by far.

A friend of mine always says "It's not all jews, it's the criminal jews." OK ... it's also the criminals of every race and creed that collaborate to enslave the world and those by their silence and inaction that are complicit. 
 

Connecting the dots reveals that Zionists, bankers and Nazis worked hand in hand. It's probably the most taboo tale in the world. It needs to be told.

Ernst Zundel is Finally Free

"Truth needs no laws to support it."

For an event that was wholly created in the poisonous psychological warfare kitchens of the Second World War, run by the ministries of propaganda in many countries, not just by the British or the Americans, but also the Russians and undoubtedly the world Jewish organizations.
Ernst Zundel
 

Ernst Zundel, Europe's most famous political Prisoner of Conscience, has been released from Mannheim Prison this morning, March 1st. Here he is with one of his defense attorneys, Dr. Herbert Schaller of Austria, both of them smiling broadly...







Ernst Zundel, a German-born publisher, author and civil rights activist, is a towering figure in the worldwide Holocaust revisionist movement. For over five years he has been held behind bars, first in Canada and now in Germany , solely for the peaceful expression of non-conformist views. 

He is the most prominent political prisoner in the western world today. He is the author of countless booklets, newsletters and essays. He is a prodigious publisher, a one-man public relations firm, and an able public speaker and organizer. Energetic, tenacious and courageous, he is dauntless in struggle against apparently insurmountable odds and seemingly invincible adversaries.
more at RePortersNoteBook 

Zundelsite

An Israeli Journalist interviews Ernst Zundel

Just how free Zundel will be remains to be seen.

In an email, Zundel's wife, Ingrid, told The Associated Press that he was not technically barred from North America but that they "expect huge diplomatic barriers to keep him inside Germany where freedom of speech simply doesn't exist."

James Von Brunn has died and the ADL attacks the 2nd amendment

James Von Brunn, the accused Washington DC Holocaust Museum shooter has died in a prison hospital before ever going to trial. I'm sure the government is glad. There were too many questions about the shooting that they would rather not have brought up in a show trial.

It's also convenient for the media. They can now spin this story into the recent 'terrorist' events and reaffirm the 'domestic terrorist' threat.








Right on cue the ADL has a press release ...

In a brief detailing the "serious threat" of armed violence by extremists and extremist groups, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that states retain the right to reasonably regulate the possession of firearms by those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence

"We have placed the problem of armed extremism squarely before the high court," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Racist and anti-government extremists often have an obsessive fascination with firearms and have shown a willingness to engage in acts of shocking and often deadly violence. We urge the Supreme Court to ensure that cities and states retain the latitude they need to keep guns out of the hands of extremists, terrorists, and violent bigots."

ADL's "friend of the court" brief in McDonald v. City of Chicago points to the long history of gun violence by anti-government and racist extremists. The brief describes three such examples in detail: the June 2009 shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC, by avowed anti-Semite and white supremacist James Von Brunn (an incident which left a security guard dead); the April 2000 shooting spree in Pittsburgh by white supremacist Richard Baumhammers (which left five dead); and the deadly standoffs in Waco, Texas in 1993 and Ruby Ridge, Idaho in 1992.

McDonald v. City of Chicago focuses on whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits most regulation of firearms by cities and states.

ADL has long supported the reasonable regulation of firearms, particularly when it comes to the possession of weapons by extremists.

"Extremists and those who commit hate crimes pose a serious threat to the safety of the general public and, more specifically, to the members of the discrete racial, ethnic and religious groups who often become their targets," reads the ADL brief. "Armed extremism leads to violent extremism with profoundly unsettling frequency and profoundly tragic results."

Thought crimes and the disarming of those accused of them legitimized by the high court has long been an ADL objective. In their brief they say 'those who practice and preach racial and ethnic violence' but what they really want is the repression of freedom of speech, especially if that free speech is exposing the crimes of Israel and jewish extremists such as the ADL itself.

Also see:

The James Von Brunn Story

The ADL ... American Dago Lobby swings into action!

ADL revels in FBI statistics of increase in 'hate crimes'

"We must rise up against the haters....

61.1 percent of offenders are white... they are the enemy within.

I've been telling you so all along"
Abe Foxman

New York, NY, November 23, 2009 … Reacting to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) annual report documenting hate crimes in America, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called for "a coordinated campaign to prevent, deter, and respond effectively to criminal violence motivated by bigotry and prejudice." The FBI statistics revealed that reported hate crimes are at their highest level since 2001.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

Hate violence in America is a serious national problem that shows little sign of slowing. The annual FBI report on hate crime statistics provides a chance to assess the scope of the problem.

It is disturbing that in 2008, as our country elected its first African-American President, the FBI report tallied 7,783 bias-motivated incidents – the highest total since 2001, including the highest number of crimes directed at Blacks, Jews, and gay men and lesbians since 2001.

The report documented more than 1,519 religion-based crimes (also the highest total since 2001), with 1,013 of them – over 66 percent – directed against Jews and Jewish institutions.{more ADL hate talk}

You can go to the FBI's 2008 hate crime statistics and ponder the meanings of their '9 ways from Sunday' statistics.

One thing I didn't find was any numbers on Jewish hate crimes. I guess there aren't any.....

When congress has to slip through a law as the 'Shepard' hate crimes law was by attaching it to a defense appropriations bill, well... that seems a little un-American and definitely unconstitutional but it's just business as usual for traitors.

This crisis of hate this gives the ADL a chance to increase their 'psychic training classes' and mold minds to focus on the agenda.

I bet those statistics rise even higher over the next few years. Better training.....

Anti-Defamation League defames by innuendo

David Codrea and friends take on two of the most racist hate spewing propaganda groups this country has ever seen, ADL and SPLC.

Photo Courtesy Oleg Volk, A Human Right

Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea

We've seen how the Southern Poverty Law Center has found smearing Oath Keepers a good tactic to exploit and call attention to themselves, and we've seen how some in the media jump at the chance to abet them. No doubt feeling left out on an opportunity for some publicity, the Anti-Defamation League has come out with "Oath Keepers and Three Percenters Part of Growing Anti-Government Movement" as their way of jumping on the bandwagon.

Here's the thing to keep in mind when ADL spouts off with their fraudulent rhetoric and bluster: It's not people like us who would deny full enfranchisement of all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, to racial and religious minorities.

It's them. The folks with the Orwellian name, who defame their political opponents while pretending to be against the evil practice...

Read the rest: David Codrea - Gun Rights Examiner 

also see: The War on Guns

SPLC vs Vanderbilt black woman professor

Anytime the hate group SPLC responds to someone challenging their agenda of divide and conquer, you can bet that challenge has merit whether you agree or disagree with all of the points.

Vanderbilt professor slammed for backing film that calls racism a myth

An organization that tracks hate-group activity in the U.S. is accusing Vanderbilt University professor Carol Swain, a black scholar known for her conservative stances on race and immigration, of being an apologist for white supremacists.

The incident started last week when the Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center posted a blog item critiquing the documentary A Conversation About Race, mentioning that positive comments by Swain lent the film an air of legitimacy.

Swain fired back, making her case against the advocacy group in a blog submitted to the news site The Huffington Post and in a string of messages she sent to followers on her Twitter account.

"There aren't enough new hate groups 2 keep the #SPLC busy, so they target individuals & conservative organizations 2 raise money," Swain wrote in a Twitter update Thursday.
Swain, a professor of law and political science, said in an interview with The Tennessean that she feels as if she has "been attacked" by the group.

Mark Potock, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Project, responded, "If that is what she believes, she is suffering from some sort of low-grade megalomania."

Potock said the goal of the Hatewatch blog posts about the film was to "spare (Swain) the embarrassment of continuing to endorse the work of a man who has referred to black people — including the president — as monkeys."

The film in question, A Conversation About Race, opens with a clip of then-Sen. Barack Obama's campaign speech on race followed by words from the filmmaker, Craig Bodeker.

"I agree with Senator Obama. … I can't think of another issue facing our country that is more timely or more important today than the issue of racism," Bodeker says in the film. "I also can't think of another issue that is more artificial, manufactured and manipulated. … It's used too often as a tool of intimidation like a hammer against Caucasian whites. "

The Hatewatch blog post described the film as a "a hit among white supremacists looking for a smart-sounding defense of their beliefs. Contrary to its title, A Conversation about Race … (is) a slick 58-minute documentary devoted to proving the thesis that racism is a bogus concept invented to oppress whites."

Swain sees things differently. If there are going to be conversations about race, she thinks they have to include what the Southern Poverty Law Center may consider extremist or hateful positions."The new white nationalism that I fear that I see … is not about groups," Swain said.

"It's about white people, individuals, thinking that they are under threat and that they have to ban together to protect themselves. My fear is that unless we create forums for people to safely and openly express themselves, then you are going to drive more young people into these extreme groups."

read the rest at The Tennessean.....also see the great number of comments there

ADL - The Dark Side of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith

Seems to be censored by youtube. 8-2-09
An 8 part playlist. The dark history of the ADL.


Under the guise of fighting "antisemitism" the ADL is out to remove channels on youtube not just videos but channels for speaking out against Israel. You so much as show a picture in war it's removed under the gross clause, you use music the wrong way its removed for that, you get flagged enough even for no reason at all and they remove it for that. And there are groups that just mass email one another and go around and flag videos that criticize Israel. The ones they leave alone are actual racist because it only helps their cause. Meanwhile they can support racial cleansing and colonization as Zionism because you see it's OK to be racist so long at it's your religion.
from wrh and anti-neocons


From youtube itself

Beating youtube at Its Game of Censorship

Double Standard Senate

The Democrats blocked a Senate amendment to audit the Fed attached to a spending bill because of what they said was on procedural grounds.

On procedural grounds, the Senate blocked a bid to permit the U.S. comptroller general, who heads the investigative arm of Congress known as the Government Accountability Office, to audit the Federal Reserve system and issue a report.

Democrats who control the Senate blocked the South Carolina Republican's amendment on the grounds that it violated rules prohibiting legislation attached to spending bills. {more}

And yet the Democrat Senate traitors have attached the Hate Crimes Bill to a military appropriations bill. Talk about a double standard.

This is an outrageous manipulation of Senate rules for just one purpose - to keep the unneeded, indefensible Hate Crimes Law from getting a full and fair hearing!

In essence, Majority Leader Reid is sneaking this bill through as an amendment because he knows opposition is growing fast and he fears the bill could not survive on its own. {more}

I could go along with not attaching unrelated bills to other bills but it needs to be applied evenly across the board. But that's not how the slime we call our representatives work. This is a classic example of an unconstitutional maneuver to get an unconstitutional law passed.

Sadly, it may be up to the Republican traitors to stop this.

Both the Audit the Fed Bill and the Hate Crimes Bill need to be debated as stand alone legislation with full disclosure to the American people and with votes reflecting the will of the people.

All we can do at this moment is not to ask, but to demand that our Senators remove the Hate Crime bill from the DOD Authorization Act.

While we're at it, we may as well demand that the DOD receive no funding at all except to bring our troops home and end the illegal occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not much of a chance of that though. The criminal organizations tend to stick together.

~~~~~~~~~~

Let the Anti-Defamation League teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians, and spearhead attempts to pass the federal hate crimes bill: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp.

thanks to The Peoples Voice for the link

Terrorists...High and Low

Low level terrorist

The US front man for the high level terrorists has a short but ever ongoing history that should be of concern to all Americans.

A few Obama war crime and unconstitutional actions have been:

Escalated the war against Afghanistan by ordering an additional 21,000 troops deployed there;

Announced that the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq would be delayed until the end of 2011 (with plenty of loopholes available to extend the occupation indefinitely);

Requested that Congress authorize a new supplemental expenditure of $83 billion to finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, after having repeatedly promised not to ask for such supplemental spending;

Intensified the drone bombings of Pakistan resulting in many more civilian deaths;

Publicized plans to enlarge U.S. armed forces by 100,000;

Proposed a budget for the Pentagon that exceeds what Bush was proposing by $23 billion;

Engineered a plan to bail out Wall Street and the banks to the tune of over a trillion dollars while refusing to take decisive measures to bail out workers and low income people, such as a moratorium on all foreclosures;

Endorsed the "race to the bottom" by pressuring UAW autoworkers employed by General Motors and Chrysler to agree to even greater concessions so that their income matches the lower wages and benefits paid by auto company competitors;

Directed government attorneys to oppose habeas corpus rights for detainees, the same as Bush did;

Directed government attorneys to oppose prosecutions and civil suits against those companies and individuals who violated wire tapping laws, the same as Bush did;

Promised not to hold criminally responsible those guilty of committing barbaric acts of torture against detainees, in effect invoking the discredited and rejected
Nuremberg defense, "We were only following orders;" {more}

The catalyst for the high level terrorists was 9/11.

Les Visible continues his analysis of 9/11. It's basic and still not wanted or understood by those who need it the most.

Hardly a day goes by when I don’t think about 9/11 and the mountain of hard, cold facts that prove beyond question that the official story is a lie. Lately we’ve been treated to a particular insidious morphing of perception. From demagogue Glenn Beck to any number of government and corporate shills we are now hearing that 9/11 truthers are “low level terrorists” and that they would be willing to work with Al Qaeda or any other terror organization that came along. We’ve even got Howdy Doody weighing in on the matter.

I’ve looked for reasons why the whole world isn’t convinced of what actually took place on that day. There are a number of possibilities and when they are combined it’s not hard to see how chicken salad can be turned into chicken shit and served as a global lunch. There is the progressive dumbing down of the population through a violated education system; there’s the junkie fixation on mass media reports, there’s the steroidal entertainment industry and strange compounds in the air, food and water. But,

…the evidence is so damning and comprehensive that even a borderline intellect should be able to see through a plot that is more gossamer than a reality starlets dress. The endless looping of three massive buildings coming down at freefall into their own footprint tells more than enough. It defies the laws of physics. It goes against irrevocable laws of nature and yet… and yet…… mystifying.

It’s not a question of whether there is a conspiracy about the matter. That is a given. It’s not a matter of who was involved. That is a given. All that we lack are the actual details of how and when.

Someone has been directing a heat source at Howdy Doody’s ass. It must be serious because he appears to have gotten a skin graft from Pinocchio. It’s all falling apart though. They are scrambling. When they have to rush through myriad hate legislations whose intent is to curb free speech and …when they have to describe people looking for the truth as terrorists then… there’s trouble behind closed doors.

The majority of truthers just want to focus on a basic conspiracy on the part of the Bush administration. The truth has limits even among truthers. The unfortunate reality though is that when you go looking for the truth you often discover things that carry a heavy price tag for their exposure. I’m in the minority crew who has made the connection to Israel and has no reservations about saying so. {Read the entire essay}

High level terrorism owes much to Israel. They pretty much wrote the book.

State Terrorism

High level economic terrorism finds the intelligence services and Israel intertwined.

Madoff tied to intelligence agencies

State and intelligence services are linked to the Honduran coup. A form of terrorism against a sovereign nation.

CIA Topples Honduran President to Protect Drugs Trade?

Pathetic Progressives Ignore Coup

Domestic 'terrorist' organizations are actually state run or sanctioned. Their goal...silence free speech and imprison those who won't comply.

ADL, DHS & DOJ Form "Thought Criminal" Squad

Congress is a big part of the terrorism against the American people and still there are those who believe in the two party system and justify our 'representatives' traitorous actions. The corporate media, left and right, enables the terrorists within our midst.

How Can These Rat-Bastards Get Away With This?

The Mainstream Media is Worthless

So while the security apparatus looks for and tries to label Americans who still value free speech as 'low level terrorists,' the terrorists on high continue their rape and plunder.

11 Reasons You Should Fight Hate Laws

art by Per Morten Abrahansen

From My Hate Speech.......

by Harmony Grant

Unless we resist now, a thought crimes bureaucracy like those regulating Australia, Canada and Europe will soon rule America. In these nations, federal hate laws have destroyed citizens' rights to free speech. Punishment of politically incorrect bias is the ultimate goal of this legislation.


A national hate law would shatter Americans' First Amendment rights, which are now sadly unique among Western democracies. We would lose our precious freedom to express politically incorrect ideas, moral judgments, or whatever personal convictions the reigning thought police deem "hateful."

Think this can't happen in America? Think again.

Hostile work environment law and campus speech bans already severely curtail free expression in American workplaces and universities. A US federal hate law would follow the examples of Europe, Canada, and Australia where Christian pastors have been indicted simply for quoting politically incorrect Scripture in their sermons. Iceland's Orwellian hate law, for example, promises two years' jail if you verbally "insult" a person on the basis of their nationality, skin color, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

If a federal hate law were passed, free expression across the political spectrum would be threatened. What would happen to blasphemous art like Piss Christ or South Park, to Ann Coulter or Al Franken, to Christians protesting sodomy or homosexuals attacking the Bible? Every American, from left-leaning feminists to red state Republicans, should protest "anti-hate" legislation. If Rosie O'Donnell were an Icelander, she could have been prosecuted for verbal "assault" for her recent statement that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Political activists in nations with hate laws have already been indicted for criticizing Islam, Zionism, and homosexuality. Hate laws threaten your freedom to speak your mind, no matter what's on it.

Here are some of the most powerful, bipartisan reasons to fight this legislation.


1. Speech bans are a political weapon used by those in power to silence their opponents and politically unpopular minorities.

Hate laws empower the government to enforce the orthodoxy of whoever happens to be in charge. The government can define which biases or "hatreds" are unacceptable and which are okay. For instance, hate laws in our PC age allow women to derogate men but would silence men from legitimate (though possibly hurtful) speech like a discussion of biological gender differences.

In 2004 Swedish feminist Joanna Rytel wrote a hate-filled screed published in a major daily. Her article describes white men as arrogant, sex-obsessed and exploitative, explaining that Rytel just wants to "puke" on them. Stockholm authorities refused to indict Rytel under their hate law, saying it was passed to protect ethnic minorities, not white Swedes. This is one example of speech bans' uneven enforcement; they are used to punish certain kinds of hate and allow others.

Because almost every exercise of free speech offends someone, government officials would end up enforcing speech bans on the basis of their own bias. Speech bans simply can't be evenhanded unless everyone is shut up altogether.

In the real world, speech can and does wound. That's a cost of life. We naturally resent painful realities like economic competition, unfair comments, and hard work. But in each case, the cures we've tried were far worse than the sickness. Speech bans might censor some hurtful speech but would empower government to silence minorities and strip the intellectual marketplace of legitimate and needed expression-the kind that creates positive, social change precisely because it is minority and challenges the sins of the group.


2. Hate speech bans don't work.

Genuine racism and false hatreds exist in this world. Bans on hate speech, however, won't solve the problem. If you only break off a tick's body, its head will burrow deep beneath the skin. The only effective response to bad ideas is the truth. We should combat falsehoods with more and freer discussion, not less.


3. Hate laws aren't necessary.

ADL claims an epidemic of hate sweeps America that can only be fought with stiffened penalties for bias-driven crimes. Yet the FBI's 2005 Uniform Crime Report shows alleged hate crimes form a tiny 1/15 of 1 percent of all crime in America. Law enforcers' time would be far better spent fighting the 99.85 percent of crime that's happening every minute across our nation rather than getting entangled in discerning and testifying against the perceived motivations of a tiny minority of criminals.

Hate laws would require vast government bureaucracies, complicate law enforcement, and distract police and prosecutors from dealing with actual physical crimes. Government and law enforcement should focus on criminal acts, not words or motivations, in a nation where someone is murdered every 22 minutes, raped every 5, robbed every 49 seconds and burgled every 10 seconds. Discerning and prosecuting criminal motivations would only be a good plan if law enforcers had God's omniscience and time to waste. Ours have neither.


4. Hate speech bans are unconstitutional.

Because the First Amendment underwrites our most precious civil liberty, the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled against speech bans. In 1972 the Court declared, "[A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its contents." (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92)

Some forms of speech are restricted; these include threats and "fighting words" that incite "an immediate breach of peace." But these restrictions are (and must remain) extremely narrow and content-neutral-the government is not allowed to censor speech based on the viewpoint it expresses but only on whether it constitutes an immediate threat. Hate laws, however, would punish the viewpoints expressed in speech, in violation of the Constitution.

International use of ADL-designed hate laws shows that the first kinds of speech to be sanctioned are extreme right, white nationalist speech and Holocaust reductionism. The average person is slow to defend such speech. But hate laws quickly broaden to punish forms of expression the average citizen would never dream of stifling. Sweden's 2002 modified hate law, for example, explicitly exposes Christian sermons to prosecution!

All forms of controversial political and religious speech are potentially vulnerable to prosecution under hate laws. This contradicts Supreme Court Justice Holmes Jr. who said in 1929, "[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment [loyal defense] than any other, it is the principle of free thought-not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."


5. Speech bans will be used against the very minorities they were meant to protect.

Speech bans silence some to protect the feelings of others. But when the government has power to silence expression that power can be wielded against the very people who once enjoyed its protection. Liberals, the champions of unrestrained speech in the 1960s, now vote as a bloc in Congress to support speech restrictions. Yet already in countries such as Canada, England and Australia, leftist critics of Islam have become the victims of hate laws, indicted for religious "hate speech."

Leftist artists Rowan Atkinson and Salman Rushdie realize hate laws don't just threaten white nationalists like David Duke but liberals as well- they recently fought for revision of Britain's hate law because it could be used to outlaw art that blasphemes or criticizes religion. Atkinson and Rushdie are just a few of hate laws' leftist critics who know that persons of all political persuasions have a stake in defeating this legislation.


6. Speech bans chill legitimate and valuable speech.

Under the threat of possible indictment, many people will refrain from discussing controversial but important ideas. Speech bans are often broad and vague, leaving citizens unsure what might get them hauled into court.

This is what has happened in American workplaces, where hostile work environment law has left many employees unsure what they can say. Many Americans avoid all controversial speech and voluntarily refrain from exercising First Amendment rights at work. Hate laws would extend this dangerous minefield to the national political scene.

Legal philosopher Edmond Cahn points out that speech bans would leave our bookshelves empty. "[T]he officials could begin by prosecuting anyone who distributes the Christian gospels, because they contain many defamatory statements not only about Jews but also about ChristiansThen the officials could ban Greek literature for calling the rest of the world "barbarians." Roman authors could be suppressed because when they were not defaming the Gallic and Teutonic tribes, they were disparaging the Italians. Then there is Shakespeare, who openly affronts the French, the Welsh, the Danes" (Beyond the Burning Cross, E. Cleary, Random House, 1994)


7. Speech bans greatly reduce the possibility of healthy, democratic change.

Criminalizing speech that expresses "hate" or "bias" would require us to outlaw history's most valuable speech, especially the political and religious speech that threatens social stasis and ignites progress.

Aggressive speech is often the only tool available to political, social, or religious minorities whose access to government lobbying and mass media is limited. Those agitating for social change often need to use inflammatory and even "hateful" language to startle the public into hearing their message. Socrates compared himself to a horsefly biting the lazy flanks of his republic. We should certainly know enough by now to prefer the annoyance of stinging speech (even when we don't see its value) to a tyrannical majority that plods, unchallenged, toward slavery.

Americans are so used to our mudslinging, no-holds-barred political discourse that we find it hard to envision the way freedom of speech could disappear. But the freedom we enjoy is extremely rare in history, and quickly lost. Free expression for intellectuals is the first thing to go when tyrants rise to power; the history of oppressive regimes makes it clear that freedom of political speech is a delicate exception and the overarching tendency is for majorities or elites to get power and silence all opposition.


8. The government's interest in reducing violent crime does not outweigh our interest in preserving civil liberty.

Hate law advocates including the ADL argue that hateful speech incites violence, and appeal to the government's interest in reducing violent crime. But it would be unfair to ban, for instance, white racist speech or Christian sermons against homosexuality without also banning the plethora of other speech that might incite crime. Gangsta rap and videogames would be open to censure; we would also have to ban pornography, especially sadomasochistic porn, which certainly inspires violence against women.

Yet bans against these kinds of speech have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional. The government has an interest in lowering violent crime of all stripes but has always found the value of the First Amendment to be greater. It's unjust to argue that a few kinds of speech must be banned because they possibly incite violence (e.g., criticism of Jewish actions or homosexuality) yet permit huge categories of speech (violent sexual entertainment) that do the same. This would happen, however, under hate laws' unequal and partial enforcement. The ADL is not truly driven by the desire to reduce violent crime but rather to enforce a social and political orthodoxy.

Instead of passing a hate law that would shatter the First Amendment and impossibly complicate law enforcement, people concerned with hate-driven crimes should focus on improving our existing justice system and making sure hard crimes don't go unpunished.


9. Speech bans are offensively paternalistic.

They presume we can't think for ourselves, reject racist or hateful ideas for ourselves, or deal with the hurt caused by others' free expression. Are we such children that we need the government to cover our ears? Speech bans especially condescend toward the minorities they portray as helpless victims whose feelings must be sheltered from ideas they can't combat in a free intellectual market.


10. Speech bans permit government to do something an individual could not morally do.

Frederic Bastiat's classic treatise on The Law says government exists only to prevent injustice by defending our basic rights to person, liberty, and property. Government does not exist to guarantee our economic outcomes, redistribute our wealth, or protect our psyches. Speech bans would empower government to silence individuals by force. This is immoral whether it's one person silencing another person or the government silencing a fringe group of dissenters. Human fallibility requires at least enough humility to allow others to question, challenge, and dissent from our ideas. John Stuart Mill explains, "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."


11. Speech bans deny self-determination and individual freedom by criminalizing self-expression.

By censoring speech, hate laws censor thought and restrict our access to ideas. This is the essence of mind control. They deny the personal growth that comes from sharing ideas-including hateful, prejudiced, or false ideas-and having them challenged in a free intellectual marketplace.



Hate law speech bans have been repeatedly declared unconstitutional and would rend the very foundation of our freedom and democracy. Far from combating hate, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act is actually the most hateful and enslaving legislation to ever reach Congress; it would invade states' rights in law enforcement, enabling a hate crimes bureaucracy to police our thoughts and expression. Government could censor by force all speech that dissents from the reigning orthodoxy. Every American must speak up now in defense of the freedom for which our forefathers gave their very lives.


Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights that individuals enjoy. It is fundamental to the existence of democracy and the respect of human dignity. It is also one of the most dangerous rights, because freedom of expression means the freedom to express one's discontent with the status quo and the desire to change it. As such, it is one of the most threatened rights, with governments - and even human rights groups - all over the world constantly trying to curtail it.

Make your voice heard today or it will be silenced tomorrow. {Source}

This post was originally from Harmony Grant.

~~~~~~~

George Orwell, the author of several books including '1984' originated the term 'thoughtcrime.' Orwell, also accurately commented, "anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing." Few realize that this great English author continually questioned all "official" or "accepted" versions of history. At the conclusion of the war in Europe, Orwell even expressed doubt about the Allied account of events and posed the following question in his lesser known book Notes on Nationalism, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear... Is it true about the gas ovens in Poland?" Ironically, those words from Orwell's pen could have resulted in a prison term for him in many European countries today -- for 'thoughtcrimes.'

SPLC 'Intelligence' Report BS

Along with the ADL, the SPLC is an organization that has a purpose; to destroy free speech and advance an agenda of control over the whole population for their 'overlords.' Whatever the steps to be proposed and possibly taken through legislative action are usually presaged in the writings of their shills. They are lobbying on the local level and even training/thought controlling law enforcement. Homeland security money and equipment adds the incentive to comply.

These groups are anti-American traitors and need to be watched and exposed for their hate and lies.

They are watching us and.....we are watching them.


The Southern Poverty Lawcenter - SPLC
Morris Dees - SPLC Alleged child molester?

A millitant organization concerned with immigrant rights, anti-racism, monitoring 'right wing organizations' the usual lot.

Founded in 1971 by Jewish lawyers Joe Levin and Morris Seligman Dees, currently headed by Julian Bond (black, communist sympathiser. Bond's father's first experience with racism in 1916 was with a Jew.. )

Two of the center's most well known activists are Mark Potok and Heidi Beirich. (both Jewish)

The SPLC has a long-standing reputation for manipulating statistics and exaggerating the extent of “racism” or “hate” in America. The group earns millions a year by making false claims about 'hate groups' and the dangers they pose to America. {more}

The SPLC 'Intelligence' Report - Summer 2009 - is a classic example of deceiving those who they say they are trying to protect and laying the bullshit on thick.

'National Anarchism'

California Racists Claim They're Anarchists
By Casey Sanchez / Illustration by Peter Horvath



San Francisco — At this year's Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair, held in Golden Gate Park in mid-March, there was plenty of discord among the 6,000 or so anarchists in attendance. The militant vegans of the Animal Liberation Front, for instance, sold books advocating violence in defense of animal rights while a nearby "anarcho-steampunk" (a survivalist with a fetish for Victorian-era steam-powered contraptions) casually skinned a roadkill raccoon. "It's good protein," he offered.

Unifying anarchists has been likened to herding cats. But if there is one theme that most anarchists will rally around, it is that of stamping out racism, especially organized racism driven by white nationalist ideology. Many younger anarchists are members of Anti-Racist Action, a national coalition of direct-action "antifa" (short for "anti-fascist") groups that confront neo-Nazis and racist skinheads in the street, often resulting in violence. At the Golden Gate book fair, one antifa crew handed out stickers with a telephone hotline number that called out the racist skinhead groups Volksfront and the Hammerskins and encouraged fellow anarchists to report in with "Information on Racist/Fascist activity in your area."

But also lurking at the book fair was a handful of little-noticed anarchists of a different sort — so-called "national anarchists," who advocate racial separatism and white racial purity. They're also fiercely anti-gay and anti-Israel. Calling themselves the Bay Area National Anarchists (BANA), they envision a future race war leading to neo-tribal, whites-only enclaves to be called "National Autonomous Zones."

Andrew Yeoman

"We are racial separatists for a number of reasons, such as our desire to maintain our cultural continuity, the principle of voluntary association, and as a self-defensive measure to protect each other from being victimized by crime from other races," BANA co-founder Andrew Yeoman told the Intelligence Report.

Members of BANA and other likeminded national anarchists cloak their bigotry in the language of radical environmentalism and mystical tribalism, pulling recruits from both the extreme right and the far left.

"It's an extremely diverse group," said Yeoman, with no hint of irony. "We have ex-liberals, ex-neo-cons, we have Ron Paul supporters, we have ex-skinheads, we have apolitical people that have been turned on to our causes."

Although national anarchism in the U.S. remains a relatively obscure movement, made up of probably fewer than 200 individuals in BANA and a couple of other groups in northern California and Idaho, organizations based on national anarchist ideology have gained a foothold in Russia and sown turmoil in the environmental movement in Germany. There are enthusiasts in Britain, Spain and Australia, among other overseas nations. Now, national anarchists in the U.S. are carefully studying the successes and failures of their more prominent international counterparts as they attempt to similarly win converts from the radical environmentalist and white nationalist movements in this country.

"The danger National Anarchists represent is not in their marginal political strength, but in their potential to show an innovative way that fascist groups can re-brand themselves and reset their project on a new footing," said a report issued last December by Political Research Associates, a Massachusetts-based progressive think tank. "They have abandoned many traditional fascist practices — including the use of overt neo-Nazi references. In [their] place they offer a more toned down, sophisticated approach … often claiming not to be 'fascist' at all."

'Entryism' and the Left
Indeed, one of national anarchists' principal tactics is called "entryism," defined in one of the movement's how-to guides as "the name given to the process of entering or infiltrating bona fide organizations, institutions and political parties with the intention of gaining control of them for our own ends."

In The Case for National-Anarchist Entryism, leading national anarchist ideologue Troy Southgate, a Briton, called for national anarchists to join political groups and then "misdirect or disrupt them for our own purposes or convert sections of their memberships to our cause."

Anti-racist anarchists on the West Coast have been aware of national anarchists attempting to infiltrate and exploit their scene since at least 2005, when the Oregon eco-anarchist magazine Green Anarchy issued a warning: "If you encounter these people, don't be fooled by the surface similarities; treat them as if they were Klan members or Nazis."

Nevertheless, the doctrines of national anarchism seem to be making inroads into what Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, a longtime researcher of esoteric Aryan racial cults, has called "a folkish or tribal revival among white youth who are beset by an acute sense of disenfranchisement."

National anarchists appeal to these youths in part by avoiding the trappings of skinhead culture — flight jackets, shaved heads and combat boots — in favor of hooded sweatshirts and bandanas. They act the part of stereotypical anarchists, as envisioned by most Americans outside of far-left circles: black-clad protesters wreaking havoc at political conventions and anti-globalization rallies.

In reality, although militant street action has been a favored and much-noticed tactic of some anarchist groups, most anarchists are less interested in smashing the state than in learning to live outside it. They scavenge surplus groceries for their meals, squat in abandoned buildings and construct pirate radio stations.

Yeoman said it was this do-it-yourself ethos that inspired him to become involved with the anarchist movement not long after the sometimes-violent 1999 anti-globalization demonstrations in Seattle drew international notice. But it didn't take him long to move towards white separatism. In 2003, "the Anarchist People of Color had a well-known meeting in Detroit in which they prohibited white people from entering," Yeoman recounted. "It was seen as this progressive thing not to allow white people into their meeting so they could pursue their black agenda or whatever. I really saw that as a huge contradiction between behavior that was allowable for certain kinds of people but not people of my descent."

Coming Out
BANA first began appearing in public in San Francisco only in late 2007. Since then, BANA members with "Keep Our Children Safe" signs have protested alongside Christian Right demonstrators outside a gay leather subculture festival in San Francisco and organized a cleanup of San Francisco Bay shores. "Just because you're proud to be white doesn't mean you have to let everything go to waste," one BANA member stated in a YouTube video documenting the beach cleanup.

The group also recently formed at least a fleeting alliance with the American Front, a skinhead group based in Sacramento, Calif. American Front leader David Lynch credits BANA online with helping raise funds on behalf of a member of the domestic extreme-right terrorist group The Order who's due to be released from prison early next year.

Last Dec. 28, BANA members donned their national anarchist hoodies —emblazoned with "Smash All Dogmas" on the back and "New Right" on both sleeves — tied bandanas over their faces, unfurled a banner reading "Yes We Can, Bay Area National Anarchists" and joined a protest of several thousand against Israel's bombing of the Gaza Strip. Practicing full-blown entryism, they marched between groups carrying the Palestinian flag and the gay-pride flag, while shouting, "Fuck, Fuck, Fuck Zionism!"

More recently, BANA members have started carrying a black flag with the letter Q in one corner. That's a reference to Yeoman's claim that his ancestors rode with Quantrill's Raiders, a notoriously violent pro-Confederate guerrilla outfit that battled for control of the border state of Missouri during the Civil War.

Like their late hero Julius Evola, an esoteric Italian writer and "spiritual racist" lionized by modern-day fascists, BANA members believe themselves to be in revolt against the modern world. The group's website carries notes of high praise for neo-Confederate secessionist groups like the League of the South and the Republic of South Carolina. Some of the site's content is unintentionally comical. For example, BANA exalts the lily-white town of Mayberry in the 1960s TV sitcom "The Andy Griffith Show" as "a realized anarchist society."

Yearning for Eden
The bulk of the BANA website, in fact, consists of long-winded blog posts predicting the imminent collapse of multicultural liberalism. Most illustrative of BANA's worldview — and its hopes for the future — is a short piece of urban apocalyptic fiction that Yeoman penned for BANA and cross-posted at the white nationalist website Stormfront.org. It's titled, "The Clock Strikes High Noon."

The story begins on a San Francisco morning with a young white woman on a bicycle. She witnesses a fight break out between a black man and a Latino. An anti-fascist street punk steps in to break up the fight, only to be beaten down. The bicyclist turns away and pulls out her laptop to discover the country is collapsing: the president has been assassinated, the stock market is in free fall, and the Constitution has been suspended.

Horrified, she speeds home on her bike into the gentrified section of the predominantly Latino Mission district, or "what she likes to call the 'whiter and brighter' side of the Mission." Inside the house, tuning into dire radio and police dispatches, she decides it's a "better time then [sic] ever to activate the network," apparently a fictional surrogate for BANA. The "network" has caches of food stashed throughout the Bay Area, which members collect and bring together at a "National Autonomous Zone, where people can be trusted to keep the zombies away."

The "zombies" are non-whites, who "emerge from the confines of the projects and barrios where the city likes to keep their surplus labor contained." The story ends with the woman on her way out the door to a safe house, chambering a round into her .45 pistol, and proclaiming, "It's time to get out of Dodge."

White nationalists taken with this kind of scenario have long proposed creating white homelands or what have been called "Pioneer Little Europes." The "PLE" movement encourages white nationalists to consolidate their presence in white neighborhoods, creating a communal atmosphere whose insularity will repel ethnic minorities. H. Michael Barrett, the originator of the Pioneer Little Europe idea, has engaged in discussions with national anarchists about the shape of his plan. For his part, Yeoman conceded that BANA's National Autonomous Zones are similar to PLEs, but he claims BANA's enclaves will be superior because residents will be selected far more carefully.

"A PLE has all the problems inherent with an open-door hippie commune in the 1970s, with the free-love mentality," Yeoman said. "We're what a PLE would be if it had higher standards."

Strait is the Gate
The reality is that BANA's philosophy is such that it has thus far drawn few followers and many enemies. Hard-liners on both the far left and the far right have expressed their disdain for national anarchism in no uncertain terms.

"I am totally dedicated to finding an equitable solution to the Jewish question. But I will be damned if I will bust my ass and sacrifice my individual desires so that a bunch of social leftists can co-opt the struggle," said one poster at Stormfront.org, the world's largest racist Web forum. "You want the flash of calling yourselves 'anarchists' without any of the philosophical baggage that accompanies such a claim. The name 'anarchist' has a pseudo revolutionary flair. You want that, but do not want to be linked with 19th century Jewish bomb tossers."

"Our role with the white nationalist movement is a transformative one rather than symbiotic one," Yeoman responded in an interview. "We have friends in the white nationalist movement but we have just as many enemies."

Even some who are ideological BANA allies do not agree with its recruiting aims. One of the few other national anarchist groups in the United States, Idaho Falls, Idaho-based Folk and Faith, has no interest in recruiting "left-wing scum," in the words of its leader, a former skinhead who uses the name "Joe Hadenuff." (BANA's magazine Hadenuff was named in his honor.)

In a forum post, Hadenuff made clear who he thinks potential recruits to the movement should be. "Try ex-skinheads that have all grown up and are raising families, try ex-reactionary racialists now moving on to folk-centered idealism, try ex-NS'ers [National Socialists] that just got worn out on '88' [neo-Nazi code for "Heil Hitler"] and Sieg Heiling cameras as a purported answer to our folk's problems," he wrote. (Last year, Hadenuff, a former soldier whose real name is Jeremy T. Wilcox, had part of an Army court martial verdict against him — for attending a Klan rally and posting racist material in 2000 — set aside.)

On most of the far left, BANA is even more despised.

One of the few non-BANA anarchists to express support for the philosophy is Keith Preston, who runs attackthesytem.com, an online gathering place for anarchists critical of far-left anarchism — a philosophy that Preston has sneeringly suggested is held by "throwaways from exurbia who think they are doing their part to bring down the System by renouncing deodorant, gorging themselves with tofu and calling their bourgeois parents Nazis for voting Republican." Preston seeks to build tactical alliances with separatists of every stripe, including Christian theocrats, white nationalists and black separatists.

That attitude — the willingness to seek out recruits from other political sectors, many of them non-racist — is what has many observers worried about the potential for national anarchists and their small but growing movement.

"The National Anarchist idea has spread around the world over the Internet," is how the Political Research Associates report puts it. "The United States has only a few websites, but the trend so far has been toward a steady increase."

The movement, PRA concluded, could become the new face of the radical right.

source: {SPLC}

Despite labels such as 'radical right' 'anti-semitic,' 'terrorists,' etc, etc, applied to dissenters, most people that I know are just anti-criminal....

The criminals always make the attempt to divert the attention away from them and on to us.

Round 'em up

Free speech is still in effect in this country and some use it for agendas that would eliminate the free speech of those with whom they don't agree.



Round up 'hate speech' promoters?

by David Codrea

CBS News and U.S. News have posted a stunning, disturbing opinion piece by Bonnie Erbe. Here's who she is, for those of you who may not be familiar with her work:

Bonnie Erbe is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and hosts PBS's weekly news analysis program, To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbe. She also writes a weekly syndicated newspaper column for Scripps Howard News Service.

Top credentials. Her voice is loud and reaches far. Here's what it's saying:

Round Up Hate-Promoters Now, Before Any More Holocaust Museum Attacks

Erbe takes her lead from a statement made by Playwright Janet Langhart Cohen on CNN following the Holocaust Museum shooting:

She said something must be done about ridding the Internet and the public dialogue of hate speech. I agree.

And what is that "something"?

Isn't it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?

I don't know, Bonnie, is it? Who is going to determine who the haters are? And without a Department of PreCrime, who can determine when one of them will kill? Who is going to be doing the round up? Are we going to maybe house them at Gitmo now that we're clearing that place out? Any trials planned in your little fantasy?

And what do you suggest "we" do if some decide to resist the "round ups"?

Why is it your "Final Solution"...I mean, "Last Roundup" to oppose neo-Nazism sounds just like something the Nazis would do, Bonnie?

I saw this coming when I wrote "Holocaust Museum shooting must not be exploited to erode liberty" the other day, citing a blogger on a popular left-wing site and expressing concern that it represented the tip of an iceberg. As we can see, it hasn't taken long for mainstream "authorized journalists" to take up the cause.

I note the chilling Ms. Erbe is affiliated with the Thomas Jefferson Street blog. I can't help but wonder what she'd have to say about an extreme insurrectionist promulgating violent views like this:

the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it's natural manure.

If Ms. Erbe and those like her get their wish, we will find out how deep that tree's roots go, how wide its branches spread.

So who am I siding with, the haters?

From where I sit, that designation belongs to Ms. Erbe. And as far a neo-Nazis go, I can't help but notice many of her political sympathies appear both national and socialist in scope.

My friend and colleague Mike Vanderboegh has sized things up well in his open letter to Erbe:

You wish to sweep away those that you find "hateful." Have you ever considered that there are many who find your ideas "hateful?"

Most of the Founders understood that you should never pass a law that you wouldn't be willing to see enforced upon you by your own worst enemy. (John Adams didn't, but then he and his party were swept from power by the reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts.) If you really believe what you wrote, and worse, get what you ask for, the resulting armed resistance to such a tyrannical proposal would sweep away the safe, mythical cocoon within which you seem to live.

And if you think that tyranny and civil war cannot come to this country, as divided ideologically and morally as we presently are, you are whistling past the graveyard of history.

A government that would do what Bonnie Erbe demands is the very reason Thomas Jefferson wrote:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

"Throw off."

And how would they do that?

{source - Examiner}

Also see David Codrea's Prior restraints on speech and guns enable tyranny

Global warming 'deniers' have also been verbally threatened.

Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2007 declared that skeptics of global warming hysteria are guilty of "treason."

Then NASA’s James Hansen said climate skeptics should be put on trial for "high crimes against humanity."

And Kennedy recently called coal companies "criminal enterprises" and said their CEO’s should be jailed "for all of eternity."

Now a global warming alarmist has taken the vitriol to new heights, calling for the execution of global warming deniers.

"At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers? . . . {more}

The root of all 'hate crime' laws lies in the protection of zionist interests. Free speech extermination is simmering in the US controlled media and in the so called left wing progressive arena.

Obama has already warned against free speech concerning challenging the 'official' 9/11 story and holocaust 'denial.' Do you think he wouldn't sign into law bills to criminalize free speech and inquiry into the 'sacred' propaganda of the ruling elite?

Can't happen here? The US assisted in the kidnapping of a free speech dissenter, Ernst Zundel. Disagreement with an individual's opinions does not give any government the right to imprison them, or worse?

Who Is Ernst Zündel, And Why Is He In Jail?

By Mark Weber

For two years, Ernst Zundel was held without charge in solitary confinement in Canada on the pretext that he was a threat to national security. On March 1, 2005, he was moved in a charter plane to Germany, where he wads subjected to a Stalinist-type show trial and sentenced to five years in prison - for "Holocaust Denial." A defense based on forensic and documentary evidence was not allowed - and for good measure, even his defense attorney, Sylvia Stolz, was sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison for offering materials in his defense!

Who is this "dangerous" activist that so much effort has been expended for decades to speak his truth - as he knows it?

This 69-year-old German-born writer, publisher and civil rights activist is a political prisoner and a victim of great injustice.

Who is this man, and why is his case so important?

=====

Zundel was arrested at his home in Tennessee on Feb. 5, where he had been living peacefully with his wife, Ingrid Rimland, on the pretext that he missed an interview date with immigration authorities. Two weeks later he was deported to Canada, even though his wife is an American citizen.

Claiming that he is a national security threat, Canadian authorities held him in isolation for two years. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) — something like the American FBI — supported this charge by citing tenuous and years-old ties by Zundel to “white supremacist” groups. While acknowledging that he is not violent himself, CSIS argues that material published by Zundel might cause “like-minded individuals to engage in violence.”

There is absolutely no basis for the “security threat” charge. Zundel’s life is an open book. He is a peaceful man with no record of violence. During the 40 years he lived in Canada, he was never convicted of a crime. In fact, he has himself been a victim of hate and violence. He survived at least three attempts on his life, including a devastating arson attack against his residence.

Jewish groups demanded that Zundel be deported to Germany, where he would face years of imprisonment for the “thought crime” of “denying the Holocaust.” (“Holocaust denial” is against the law in Germany, France, Switzerland and some other European countries.)

Zundel is in prison not because his views are unpopular, or because he’s a “security risk.” He’s in prison because Jewish groups want him there. He’s a prisoner because he promotes views that the Jewish-Zionist lobby considers harmful to its interests.

This lobby is the decisive, critical factor in the decades-old campaign to silence him. The only sustained and institutionalized effort to imprison him has come from this lobby, which includes the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association, and the League for Human Rights of B’nai B’rith (with the Anti-Defamation League, its counterpart in the US). {more}

The round up of dissenters considered a threat to the status quo is now a possibility, either through legislation or executive order. That executive order would come quick in the aftermath of a new catastrophic and catalyzing event. The most recent catalyzing event of Sept. 11, 2001 proved that the pursuit of control knows no bounds.

JIDF hate group attacks free speech

jewish internet defense force

The Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) is a non-violent protest group who share concerns about antisemitic online content, as well as content which promotes terrorism on sites including Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Google Earth, Blogger, and other sites and forums throughout the internet. The JIDF believes in direct action both to eradicate the problems we face online and to create the publicity that will cause those with the power (companies like Facebook and Google) to take the needed action themselves.


A jewish group, the JIDF, taking issue with the jewish internet moguls....yeah right.

Facebook - Mark Zuckerberg

Google, youtube, blogger - Sergey Brin...Larry Page

Wikipedia - Jimmy Wales

The enemies huh...

Before you slobber all over yourself, the JIDF can help.

JIDF Bib
$17.99

A non-violent protest group...I'll have to question that. Attacking free speech, creating false history and trolling the internet to censor any criticism of jewish criminals and their allies plus Israeli genocide and war crimes may not be physically violent but it sure as hell is violent against freedom and truth.

"eradicate the problems we face online" means shutting down anyone who would dare to express their first amendment rights.

The JIDF, google, wikipedia, youtube.....

working together to create an antisemitic free internet..... one where the truth has no place.

Bart Gordon Turns Toward the Right?

This is my favorite book kiddies. "My Pet Goat"


A no vote by Mr. Gordon, TN 6th district congressman, on H.R. 1913 - the Hate Crime Bill, may mean that he heard a few voices on April 15, "Bye Bye Bart."

By turning towards the right I mean voting according to the constitution. Voting this way once does not make him a strict Constitutionalist. Pelosi and his other 'leaders' will see that he doesn't go too far astray.

Of course this was a safe vote in going against Democratic majority. It wasn't close and they'll let him slide on this one if it saves Bart a few votes in 2010. The loyal 'old hands' have to stick together.

Let's see which way he goes when the vote may be close and his vote would be seen as crucial.

His handlers will coach him.

~~~~~~~

Bart responded to my email asking him to vote no on HR 1913.

Dear Kenneth,

Thank you for sharing your opposition to H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Hearing from you helps me better represent Middle Tennessee.

Like you, I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment and its protections. I voted against this bill because I do not believe in special treatment for any group of people. All citizens are equal under the law and should be treated the same. H.R. 1913 passed the House on April 29, and now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to call on me if I may ever be of assistance to you and your family.

Stay in touch,

BART GORDON
Member of Congress

~~~~~~~

H.R. 1913.....that's the same year the Federal Reserve came into being.

What about your vote on H.R. 1207 , the Federal Reserve Transparency Act..... Bart.

There's also H.R. 875, and 1816.

And these are just a few of the 'critical' votes you have to think about.

We remember your vote on the bailout Bart. It wasn't pretty.

Decisions, decisions.