Keith Olbermann Special Comment *MR BUSH YOU ARE A FASCIST!*

Keith Olbermann Special Comment *MR BUSH YOU ARE A FASCIST!*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEcBjpsP1bU

Here is something even more scarey:

http://tribes.tribe.net/rawadvice/threa ... a4d4b3add0

Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Thoughts, Blogs, Books and Free Speech
Across America

by Mike Adams

The end of Free Speech in America has arrived at our doorstep. It's a new
law called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention
Act, and it is worded in a clever way that could allow the U.S. government
to arrest and incarcerate any individual who speaks out against the Bush
Administration, the war on Iraq, the Department of Homeland Security or any government agency (including the FDA). The law has already passed the House on a traitorous vote of 405 to 6, and it is now being considered in the Senate where a vote is imminent. All over the internet, intelligent people
who care about freedom are speaking out against this extremely dangerous
law: Philip Giraldi at the Huffington Post
<www.huffingtonpost.com/philip...io_b_74
091.html> , Declan McCullagh at CNET's News.com
<www.news.com/8301-13578_...5287-38.html , Kathryn
Smith at OpEdNews.com
<www.opednews.com/articles/..._help_to_t
opp.htm> , and of course Alex Jones at PrisonPlanet.com
<www.prisonplanet.com/article...ped.htm>

This bill is the beginning of the end of Free Speech in America. If it
passes, all the information sources you know and trust could be shut down
and their authors imprisoned. NewsTarget could be taken offline and I could
be arrested as a "terrorist." Jeff Rense at www.Rense.com
<www.rense.com/> could be labeled a "terrorist" and arrested. Byron
Richards, Len Horowitz, Paul Craig Roberts, Greg Palast, Ron Paul and even
Al Gore could all be arrested, silenced and incarcerated. This is not an
exaggeration. It is a literal reading of the law, which you can check
yourself here: thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxm...955_rfs.xml
<thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxm...55_rfs.xml>

The bill states:

'...ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened
use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or
individual's political, religious, or social beliefs...

Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or
social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on
the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in
Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of
words, "force" could mean:

* A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
* A non-violent street protest
* A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
* A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
* A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any
government department or agency

You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And
since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of
terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would
be engaged in terrorist acts.

If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example,
this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote
the individual's religious beliefs...")

If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming
and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also
be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political
beliefs...")

If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a
sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be
considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out!
("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")

The United States is on the fast track to fascism, and the Congress is
working right alongside this nation's traitorous leaders to criminalize any
thoughts, words or speeches that disagree with current government policies
regarding war, terrorism, domestic surveillance and civil liberties. Simply
speaking out against the war on Iraq could soon be labeled a crime. Merely
thinking thoughts against the war on Iraq could be considered a criminal
act.

Can Olberman even get more moronic? He's always been a huge socialist libidiot that only a complete libidiot can understand. I'd like to se Ann Coulter take him on in a girlie slap-fest.

The reformation of the church was a direct result of the invention of the printing press. The church and all governments have been scared since. They quickly gaineded control of the press through laws, manipulation of editors and writters, using both monetary or territorial exclusivity promises to papers and publishers and publishing houses governments and rulers of nations have been able to control the thoughts and the direction of policy since.

The internet is the Hiedelburg Press of today. Times 1 billion! (pick a number it is HUGE.)

History of the medias is very interesting.

Read Paul Starr, The Creation of the Media

If anarchy pops up it's ugly head as peoples gain more and more of un-biased information, or just information that appeals to particular groups of peoples, whats a government to do?

If censorship controls, what is the outcome of a medium (internet) that has no censors?

This is the first time in history that peoples can communicate on such a massive scale across all borders and cultures and faiths and political persuasions at a speed that is indeed mind blowing.

Is it best to have the powers to be censor the peoples information available to them? Or to face utter chaos?

It is indeed a brave new world.

Trekkies unite! To go where no man has gone before! (or something like that) :D

(IMHO)... Out of all the major cable networks, MSNBC is the 'least best' and still has only a tiny fraction of the overall market share in this area (about 10%-12% of the space occupied by CNN, Fox, and MSNBC). My local cable provider recently replaced it's spot on our channel listing with the WeatherChannel (which, I'll admit to being very grateful for :D). Now, to get MSNBC you have to pay extra (which I'll never do BTW). Anyway...

re:

Quote:

---

Keith Olbermann Special Comment *MR BUSH YOU ARE A FASCIST!*

---

Technically, that is a basically accurate assessment. Governments that become complicit with large corporate and monied interests fit the mold which defines a Fascist type of government vs. a 'Socialist' one.

Under Boosh, he has pushed de-regulation and lax enforcement of private companies while helping to privatize many things that belong in the public sphere as well.

In addition, he has spurred greater governmental military/police infringement upon civil liberties. These aspects above form the hallmark of a fascist variant of government.