First Amendment Terrorist: Pentagon Says Protests Are Acts of “Low Level Terrorism

freedom-of-speech-gagged-300x210

First, the government responds to the September 11th attack by passing the Patriot Act, which is purportedly designed to protect us from foreign terrorists. Most of America cheers it on, never realizing that within the act is a broad definition for something categorized as domestic terrorism, or “activities that appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.”

Second, they pass the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows them, under the definitions for domestic terrorism set forth by the Patriot Act, to detain someone without trial and forever if they appear to be subverting the newly established status quo.

Third, they declare all federal property, or property being used for political events where Secret Service protection is present, as “events of national significance” through the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act. Undesirable demonstrators operating counter to the official narrative in these areas are herded into court approved free speech zones.

Finally, once the new laws are in place, the government security apparatus begins the re-education of its minions by labeling as “terrorists” anyone who dares speak out or disagrees with their new policy initiatives.

This last step is and has been happening for some time.

Even the very act of assembling with other like minded people to influence policy by petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances can land you on the domestic terrorism list.

More At: Red ice Creations

H.R. 347 : Obama Signs Anti-Protest Trespass Bill

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it.

President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest.

The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime.

Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers.

In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Read more Here

Occupy Yourself – Not The Streets

At the heart of each conflict is two predictable polar opposites – the aggressor and the defense. Pick any conflict in history and you will be amazed that this holds true for each one. Due to the predictability of this pattern, the aggressor knows that there will be an uprising to deal with. With this knowledge, a strategic plan, and some power within society, the aggressor can not only sabotage any uprising but it can also steer the uprising in the certain direction for its own benefit. Think about it? Who has a bigger voice in the political realm? You or a multinational corporation?

The truth about protesting in the way of the Occupy groups, and others we have seen throughout history is that its exactly what the aggressor wants you to do. They want you to walk out into the streets. They want you to hold a sign. They want to know who opposes. They want you to identify yourself as a dissenter so the cameras can be pointed in your direction. Yes – its important to advertise that something is wrong in the world but we need to realize the limitations of this method. Look back at the history of protest and see that the traditional way of protesting is simply not effective and helps the aggressor deal with the predictable opposition

Read more @
http://www.sasqwach.net/?p=68