Monday, January 10, 2011

Outlaw that speech because it MIGHT be a threat...

Milo Nickels, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

It was only a matter of time before the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy was turned into a rationale for the government to take more of our freedoms.  This is how our government always responds to tragedy--it's almost formulaic:
  • Step 1 - wait for tragedy to occur, or actually create the tragedy.
  • Step 2 - spread propaganda through the media, so everyone believes your story about the tragedy
  • Step 3 - pass laws, or institute policies, that take away people's freedoms.
  • Step 4 - justify the increased Tyranny by citing the propaganda in step 2.
This same process, has led to the creation of most traffic laws, to the Patriot Act, to "enhanced pat-downs," and countless other usurpations of freedom.

Shortly after Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by a psychopath, and the media started reporting about Sarah Palin's crosshair map (which, as far as we know had nothing at all to do with the shooting), I began wondering how long it would be before we started seeing attacks on our freedoms.  In particular, I was expecting attacks on the second amendment because Jared Loughner used a gun; and I expected attacks on free speech (and proposals for more control of the Internet) because Jared Loughner spoke out against the government on YouTube and Facebook.

And, so it begins.  There is already an article on The Hill titled "Dem Planning a Bill That Would Outlaw Threatening Law Makers."  The article begins like this:
Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.
Look at that language.  The language (or symbols) doesn't have to be threatening or actually incite violence.  It doesn't even have to be perceived that way.  If it could be perceived that way--through the widest, loosest, and irrational interpretations imaginable--that is sufficient to charge someone with a federal crime.  This kind of broad, widely subjective legislation would make it potentially illegal to disagree with the government about anything.

Here are several examples of fairly benign sentences that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official:
  • Gee, someone has to do something about our government.  They are out of control.
    By "do something" does he mean "shoot people" or "revolt"???
  • That politician is greatly harming America, and something should be done.
    What does he mean by "something should be done"???  Sounds like a rebel yell to me.
  • "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - Thomas Jefferson
    Did he say BLOOD???  Oh my god, he is calling for violence!!!
  • "Concerted power has always been the enemy of liberty" - Ronald Reagan
    Oh my god, he is saying that a big government is the ENEMY...this means we should attack them!!!
  • "If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun" - Barack Obama
    Obama just said to use guns against political opposition!!!!  I heard it!!!!
That's right, virtually any political discussion or comment, especially if you express frustration or opposition, could be perceived as a call for violence.  Laws like this are nothing more than an assault of free speech.  Of course, they will forge ahead with this legislation--whether it's constitutional or not.  They will probably name it after Gabrielle Giffords, and call it the "Giffords Act against Political Hate Speech" (or something like that).  Then, if you oppose the legislation, they will question your compassion and say you must agree with Jared Loughner.

I would say that we must stand up against tyrannical laws created by exploiting tragedies, but that could be perceived as a call to arms.  Rather, I will just implore you to read the Constitution, and employ some common sense. 

Milo Nickels began blogging and cartooning about politics in the year 2000.  After achieving some notoriety at that time, Milo took a break.  Now, Milo has launched a new website, Five Cent Revolution where he continues to write about political issues.  In particular, Milo focuses on constitutionalism, critiques of modern liberalism and progressivism, and defends individual liberty above all else.  Milo wants the government out of our wallets, out of our business, and out of our lives to the greatest extent possible.   

Recently by Milo Nickels:
Explaining The Acts of Madmen...

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

Quite correct. The political terrorists use this method to enslave their stupid tax cattle. Public schooling has destroyed freedom in Amerika.

Anonymous said...

I agree with all you say, except he may very well NOT be a psychopath. Deranged, mentally ill, psychotic...Yes. But psychopaths are not necessarily deranged and out of reality. A large part of Congress and the Banking industry are Psychopaths, and they are lucid and know exactly what they are doing.

But otherwise, agree! I noticed this same thing last night while reading an "opinion" by a guy that was going on and on about the hate speech etc. Not sure of his name, maybe Klein? But point is, they WILL be using this as means for more clamp downs.

Interestingly, the entire Congress is "scared" according to MSM sources. So, that is good.

I really hope giffords recovers. I don't think she was a bad congress person. I'm sure there could be improvements (especially on her "war on terrorism" stance) but at least she was out there at the street level trying to connect to the people.

PAGAU said...

excellent essay

Anonymous said...

Yes...They are what is called high-functioning psychopaths and in the same league as Hitler and Stalin. Serial murderers have the same criminal mentality as the Congressmen and the International Central Bankers as well as most TV and newspaper "journalists".

Anonymous said...

Scratch a liberal...underneath, there is a fascist yearning to silence dissent. said...

"tragedy vultures" - a term I just came across on another blog. The Mainstream Media is infested with this new species.

Anonymous said...

Not bad, but you missed the salient point of this typically knee-jerk reaction -- who will do the "perceiving?" The federal official, party, or other entity being criticized, of course. The "hate speech" law is finally about to cross the Canadian border.

ken said...

Excellent article. This explains the situation very well. I have had the same thoughts about this problem, but have not put them into a coherent post. Keep up the good work!

Mike S said...

Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) ought to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a citizen of the United States.

And then repeal nearly all of the federal government and code, since it uses violence and threats of violence to accomplish everything it does.

Anonymous said...

This is nothing new-its already happened in Australia -after Martin Bryant's Tassie rampage

Anonymous said...

I don't think it would be the 'Giffords Act', it would be more like the 'Anti-Gabby Act'.

Something about the name Brady and Rights protect (not given) by the US Constitution just don't seem to mesh very well.

Anonymous said...

Step 3 - pass laws, or institute policies, that take away people's freedoms.

That cannot be done lawfully. Any and all laws that attempt to abrogate the unalienable rights of the people are NULL AND VOID.
The people in the USA have chosen to live by the rule of law, not the rule of men. If those running around calling themselves government can "take away the people's freedoms" any time they deem it necessary, that means Americans are living under the rule of men and not the rule of law.

“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs, Arizona,

Consider this opinion of the Supreme Court:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.”

“Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..

Howard T Lewis said...

Congress has preached undeserved violence against much of the world to facilitate submission to a New World Order. What goes around comes back around.

jakintexes said...

Who read the part of THE CONSTITUTION about "FREE SPEACH" on the house floor last week?

Adam said...

the fundamental fact is that as we have seen time and again there is a conflict between natural and legal law... any written document be it constitution or declaration of independence is statute, it is made by man not god.

natural law only deals with what god has given us.. four very fundamental laws to guide our lives.

the president never swears to protect the united states of America.. NO NO NO! He only ever swears to protect the 'Uniteds States' which is the corporate fiction and actual powerhouse of the real social construct in America..

All law is Null and Void and we should not stand for it.

Post a Comment