http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20080921_youtube_crackdown.htm

Internet attacks on 9/11 Truth intensify
Cloned YouTube accounts just latest move toward limiting political speech on internet

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
21 September, 2008

Internet censorship is once again in the news after legendary YouTube user Nuffrespect posted a new video detailing the latest online attack on 9/11 Truth: a user who is creating clones of respected user accounts and truth movement leaders in order to smear 9/11 Truth by posting racist comments. These have already led to the deletion of several well-known accounts in what has been revealed as a coordinated effort to eliminate 9/11 Truth from YouTube.

This is in addition to the news that YouTube deleted a number of videos and accounts last week at the behest of Senator Joe Lieberman.

In an interview with WeAreChangeLA.org, Richard Gage AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, responds powerfully to the insinuations and defamations put forth by Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center during his powerpoint presentation in Jane Harman's congressional committee hearing last fall. Among making other powerful points, he calls for an apology, a retraction and a meeting with Mark Weitzman and/or representatives from the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

There is more of this interview to come.

By online writer Michael Collins. You can see more of his work at Scoop, OpEdNews and his site, ElectionFraudNews.com

Part One: Thought Control on the Internet

Who's Really Behind "Violent Radicalization?"

The irony of all this is that those who would fit this definition most clearly, "facilitating violent radicalization," are the architects of the Iraq war and those in Congress who provide ongoing support through funding.

Here are the inevitable, empirically verified steps to radicalize individuals and groups. Initiate trade sanctions against a nation resulting in the death of 300,000 or more children. Then attack that nation because it has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which are never found, thus negating the rationale for war. Create and implement a policy that shows disregard to for the safety of its people and their national treasures. Torture and humiliate citizens. And all the while, prolong the conflict even though the war is responsible for the death of over 1.1 million civilians.

Aren't these the type of actions that would surely "facilitate violent radicalization?" Even with all this, there has been no documented "homegrown terrorism" as a result of political posts on the Internet. However, there can be little doubt that this administration's war on Iraq is the proximate cause explaining whatever potential exists. (Full article.)

Continued below...

Silly me and oh, a few (thousand) other bloggers tiredly hammering away at the keyboard... it turns out we have made a colossal mistake! H.R. 1955 / S. 1959 is doubleplusgood! Citizens should now refrain from writing letters to their Senators and rejoice in the glorious message that has been handed down from the Committee on Homeland Security, titled, Understanding H.R. 1955 The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. Definitely do not, I repeat, do not sign this petition!

See, Dennis Kucinich just didn't understand, when he said, "...it was H.R. 1955? It probably should have been H.R. 1984. Because what they were doing... is they were trying to criminalize thought...", and former CIA Officer Philip Giraldi was just winging it when he wrote, "Language inserted in the act does partially define 'homegrown terrorism' as 'planning' or 'threatening' to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes 'violent radicalization' as the promotion of an 'extremist belief system' without attempting to define 'extremist.'" Then there are those whacked out crazies, over at the NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD AND SOCIETY OF AMERICAN LAW TEACHERS, who say, "This legislation does not criminalize conduct, but may well lead to criminalizing ideas or beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. By targeting the Internet, it may result in increased surveillance of Internet communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment." Ron Paul puts the legislation in perspective, "Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life." (Even the normally indifferent Obama is waffling a bit on his position.)

Rep. Jane Harman and her pals at RAND apparently wonder why you, American Citizen, should be at all worried about being "studied" as a possible candidate for "violent radicalization" or "homegrown terrorism". As evidenced by the helpful guide to H.R. 1955 now front and center on the Committee's home page, you, thousands of lawyers, a couple Presidential Candidates, and thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens just don't understand.

Dummkopf!

Facebook group protests U.S. House bill By Justin Mohn, Staff Writer.
http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=28488

Tyler College sophomore Ryan Steele, the creator of another protest group called “Students Against H.R. 1955,” said he thought the bill broke with the Founding Fathers’ view of America, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

“I think it broadens the description of a terrorist,” Steele said. “I think it includes U.S. citizens who are against the government in the description.”

Shey said he is also worried about the descriptions of terrorists.

“Would ‘9/11 Truthers’ or anti-war protestors, such as Code Pink, constitute having an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence?” he said. “If definitions such as this one are stretched, dangerous conclusions could be reached.”

The vague language of the bill caused concern, Shey said.

1/2 page "Thought Crime" Bill protest flyers attached: The .pdf generically recommends concerned citizens contact their Senators; The Word .doc you can edit your specific Senator's phone #'s into, (and you can change the wording as well, if you like- if you are not in California, take note that the Word .doc has Senators Boxer and Feinstein's names and #s just above "National Lawyers Guild" near the bottom of the 1st page.

http://www.911blogger.com/sites/default/files/Thought%20Crime%20Bill%20generic.pdf

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/12/02/am-i-a-terrorist/

Am I a Terrorist?

December 2, 2007

by Scott Creighton

I woke up with the strangest thought. Are the views that I hold “extremist”? Are they dangerous to America? Am I a terrorist?

Now, normally I would simply attribute thoughts of this nature to way too much free time and simply take the dog for a walk and then go play tennis, and these improper thoughts would simply melt away into where the day takes me. Normally.

But we live in different times; by no means normal. After all, everything changed on 9/11, or haven’t you heard?

Let’s face it; the Executive Branch is no longer our own. Republican or democrat it really doesn’t matter. When standing in the way of the Unitary Executive’s agenda, we are all truly equal in the eyes of the law.

This past week saw AirAmerica radio host Randi Rhodes address H.R. 1955 twice on her popular daytime show. Once on Tuesday and again on Friday. The Friday segment features an interview with former CIA officer, Philip Giraldi. Giraldi has been very critical of the Neocons, astute in his observations about Sibel Edmonds, and on Monday published a blog at Huffingtonpost.com that cuts to the chase regarding the Bill. The Bill seeks to lay the foundation to criminalize thought;

"Language inserted in the act does partially define "homegrown terrorism" as "planning" or "threatening" to use force to promote a political objective, meaning that just thinking about doing something could be enough to merit the terrorist label. The act also describes "violent radicalization" as the promotion of an "extremist belief system" without attempting to define "extremist."

Giraldi is not alone in his interpretation of the Bill. He is joined by Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who actually READ the bill, and voted against it, along with a mix of 5 other Democrats and Republicans. In this video, Kucinich explains his vote (relevant segment begins at the 7:00 minute mark);

Continued below...