Rep. Peter King (R-New York) is the kind of in-your-face demagogue that only the state of New York could have elevated to high office. From his perch in the 3rd congressional district, in Long Island, King holds forth like a cruder version of Rudolph Giuliani, if you can imagine it. Yet we don’t have to imagine it, because it will be on full display when Rep. King, in his capacity as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, presides over hearings on “the radicalization of the Muslim-American community.”
Those hearings portend a circus, in the course of which we’ll be subjected to a very public airing of the malignant views of people like Robert Spencer, Pamela “the shrieking harpy” Geller, and Frank Gaffney, a rogues gallery of anti-Muslimologist “experts” whose hate-filled rantings will further poison the atmosphere of an America itching for a lynching.
Although the neoconservatives were generally discredited in the wake of the Iraq war, when the complete failure of their policies – and prophecies – became all too apparent even to many of them, the dead-enders among them have sought to make a comeback by transferring their war on Muslims from the Middle East to the home front. The Ft. Hood massacre was a godsend to them, and they took full advantage of the opportunity. The “ground zero” mosque controversy was another shot in the arm for this movement, and Rep. King did not disappoint on that front: When it comes to crude bigotry and religion-based divisiveness, we can always rely on King to sink to the occasion, far lower than practically anyone else.
So the hearings will be a farce, a show trial of the Muslim community in which the mere act of putting up a defense gives the prosecution a legitimacy it could never achieve on the merits of the case. Because there is no organized pro-al Qaeda, pro-terrorist tendency in American Islam to speak of, at least so far. Which is why the FBI has had to resort to entrapment in prosecuting alleged homegrown “terrorists.” The last one was a confused Somali teenager, lured by the FBI into planning a bombing (Read more from original.antiwar.com)
By Doug Hornig, Editor, Casey’s Extraordinary Technology
In late September, there was a modest gathering of law enforcement officers, military personnel, and mental health professionals in the small western New York town of Hamburg. It was totally ignored by the mainstream media, with just a reporter from the Buffalo News on hand to record the proceedings. Lucky for us.
The 120 men and women were attending the International First Responder-Military Symposium, held at Hilbert College, a small “Franciscan tradition” place of learning. Not that St. Francis would have been interested in a military symposium, but if he’d been able to attend, he’d have heard all about a new technology that will help identify and track “terrorists.”
A lot of very disparate people have been tagged with that term of late. But this new tech may well be the final icing on the cake. It’s a computer program that trawls phone conversations, emails, and social networking sites looking for any signs of resentment of the government.
That’s right. If you’re angry at Washington, they want to know who you are and what you’re saying.
The program has just been rolled out, and there’s no certainty that the cops or the Pentagon will jump at the chance to own it. But in the current climate, what’s the likelihood that they’ll turn up their noses at the opportunity to add this valuable weapon to their anti-terrorist arsenal?
Mathieu Guidere of the University of Geneva is co-developer of the software, along with Dr. Newton Howard, director of MIT’s Mind Machine Project. Guidere said it works by pinpointing “resentment in conversations through measurements in decibels and other voice biometrics,” and that it “detects obsessiveness with the individual going back to the same topic over and over, measuring crescendos.” With written material, it hunts for a similar fixation on the subject.
Chillingly, Guidere added that once this dangerous individual has been identified, the information can be passed along to authorities so surveillance can begin. (Read more from caseyresearch.com)
Police: Man arrested at Conn. company for saying he understood mindset of shooter who killed 9
Connecticut police say they arrested a man at a management company after he mentioned the shooting rampage across the state that killed nine people and said he understood the killer’s mindset.
Fifty-eight-year-old Francis Laskowski of Derby was charged with breach of peace Wednesday after making the comments while working at Fusco Management Co. in New Haven. (Read more from rawstory.com)
Enter the thought police.
I thought this article was sensationalism until I listened to the interview. Where the hell do you find people like this? And how the hell to they rise to such positions of power? The crooks are in charge.
I suspect this guy’s mandate is not to pass the propaganda legislation, but just to introduce the idea to the public as a possibility, to begin a discussion.
Cass Sunstein, who wrote a white paper calling for “conspiracy theories” to be banned, wants to legally force Americans to “do what’s best for our society” and dilute their own free speech.
. . . .
In a set of proposals designed to counter “dangerous” ideas, Sunstein suggested that the government could, “ban conspiracy theorizing,” or “impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories”.
So-called “conspiracy theories that Sunstein said could be subject to government censorship included beliefs held by the vast majority of Americans, such as the notion that the JFK assassination occurred as part of a wider plot.
In his white paper, Sunstein also cited the belief that “global warming is a deliberate fraud” as another marginal conspiracy theory to be countered by government censorship.
“If we could get voluntary arrangements in that direction, that would be great, but if we can’t get voluntary arrangements maybe we should ask Congress to hold hearings.”
“The word voluntary is a little complicated. Sometimes people don’t do what’s best for society.”
Dear Homeland Security, Please read my mind now right now to discover what I think of you.
In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama’s appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated “cognitive infiltration” of groups that advocate “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11.
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures,” in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.
As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of “overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs,” according to the White House Web site. (Read more from rawstory.com)
This has been on my mind ever since I heard Aaron Russo suggest the elites were behind Women’s Suffrage because they wanted to change America from a country in which half the people worked and paid taxes to a country where everyone worked and paid taxes. As it typical they hi-jacked a legitimate movement for their own purposes.
I was interested to see this report from thedailybell.com. They quote some news then offer analysis along the same lines as Aaron Russo:
At a time when the world is short of causes for celebration, here is a candidate: within the next few months women will cross the 50% threshold and become the majority of the American workforce. Women already make up the majority of university graduates in the OECD countries and the majority of professional workers in several rich countries, including the United States. Women run many of the world’s great companies, from PepsiCo in America to Areva in France. Women’s economic empowerment is arguably the biggest social change of our times. Just a generation ago, women were largely confined to repetitive, menial jobs. They were routinely subjected to casual sexism and were expected to abandon their careers when they married and had children. Today they are running some of the organisations that once treated them as second-class citizens. Millions of women have been given more control over their own lives. And millions of brains have been put to more productive use. Societies that try to resist this trend-most notably the Arab countries, but also Japan and some southern European countries-will pay a heavy price in the form of wasted talent and frustrated citizens. – Economist
Dominant Social Theme: Hurray for women …
Free-Market Analysis: The liberation of women is in our opinion another dominant social theme, one of the longest running of the power elite’s promotions. The real push for women to become part of the work force happened in the 20th century. Not surprisingly, this was the century that saw the imposition of full-fledged central banking around the world. At the beginning of the 20th century, it was still culturally a problem for women to work, but the power elite promotion was launched to make women “modern” and it is still ongoing.
If you want to implement global governance, you need to break down the family unit as much as possible. Nothing can stand in the way of the state. From the power elite’s standpoint, getting women into the workplace in the name of “equality” solved a lot of problems at once. It left children parentless during much of the day, so that the state itself could take over childcare. And without the firm guidance of the full family, many children, especially girls, became much more promiscuous at an early age which also contributed to a fracturing of private culture.
. . . . But the real reason, in our opinion, that woman’s liberation is a power-elite promotion, and a very long-running one, has to do with central banking. The erosion of fiat money earning meant inevitably that to keep up there would have to be more than one wage earner in the household. Woman’s liberation was promoted, in our opinion, as a way of making it culturally acceptable for women to work – so as to conceal the degradation of the currency.
“While America slept on Wednesday April 25 we woke up to find headlines about how Michelle Obama likes to sneak out and eat at fun restaurants. Not so well covered by the media was the passage of the Hate Crimes bill re-introduced and passed in committee by John Conyers. (D-MI) What does it mean?
. . . .
The ‘hate crimes bill’ is an affront to states sovereignty and if misinterpreted by any level of law enforcement will quickly become a ‘thought policing’ bill to wrest even more freedoms from the average citizen by essentially demanding that special groups get special justice.” (Read more from canadafreepress.com)
“All violent crimes should be vigorously prosecuted – but this novel legal approach violates several core principles and holds a number of dangers.
1) It violates the ‘equal protection of the laws’ by protecting some victims more than others. This is a principle which is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is even carved above the entrance to the Supreme Court (‘Equal Justice Under Law’). Do we somehow care less about a victim who is violently assaulted because of a robbery or personal dispute than we do about a victim who is assaulted because they belong in a federally protected category?
2) It punishes thoughts and not just actions. Advocates of the bill deny this because it only authorizes prosecution of someone who ‘willfully causes bodily injury’ or ‘attempts to cause bodily injury.’ But such acts are already crimes under state law. What converts the acts targeted by this bill into a federal offense are the thoughts or opinions of the perpetrator alone. Since every violent crime manifests some sort of ‘hate,’ it makes more sense to think of this as a ‘thought crimes’ law.
3) It constitutes a major federal power grab from states and localities. A version of this bill in an earlier Congress was dubbed the ‘Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act.’ It might better be known as the ‘Local Law Enforcement Usurpation Act.’ In fact, it would even allow prosecution of an individual who had already been prosecuted and acquitted for the same act at the state level-which violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.” (Read more from conservativeunderground.com)