Homeland Security document labels all freedom loving citizens as terrorists

From BSC

All of these obviously NON terrorist groups, are classified as terrorists and lumped in with other real terrorist groups like Aryan Nation Prison gangs, and violent anti-semitic hate groups, in this Department of Homeland Security document.

This document can broadly classify ANYONE as a terrorist. Please read it. Please pass it on. Below you will find a selection of the most dangerous parts and some comments. The full PDF is linked below.

This product provides definitions for key terms and phrases that often appear in DHS analysis that addresses the nature and scope of the threat that domestic, non-Islamic extremism poses to theUnited States.

- Notice how it says domesitc, non-Islamic extremism…. aka Americans.

(U) alternative media (U//FOUO)
A term used to describe various information sources that provide a forum for interpretations of events and issues that differ radically from those presented in mass media products and outlets.

- If your story doesn’t match the ‘official’ story, you are a terrorist. This crushes the 1st amendment, freedom of the press, freedom of speech.

(U) decentralized terrorist movement (U//FOUO)
A movement of groups or individuals who pursue shared ideological goals through tactics of leaderless resistance independent of any larger terrorist organization.

- Any individual can be branded a terrorist, just for having ideological goals. He doesn’t even have to be part of a terrorist group.

(U) direct action (U//FOUO)
Lawful or unlawful acts of civil disobedience ranging from protests to property destruction or acts of violence. This term is most often used by single-issue or anarchist extremists to describe their activities.

-It says LAWFUL ACTS of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND PROTEST is TERRORISM!

(U) hacktivism (U//FOUO) (A portmanteau of “hacking” and “activism.”)
The use of cyber technologies to achieve a political end, or technology-enabled political or social activism. Hacktivism might include website defacements, denial-of-service attacks, hacking into the target’s network to introduce malicious software (malware), or information theft.

-The first sentence translates that using a technology for politics, like reporting political news on the internet, is terrorism!

(U) leaderless resistance (U//FOUO)
A strategy that stresses the importance of individuals and small cells acting independently and anonymously outside formalized organizational structures to enhance operational security and avoid detection. It is used by many types of domestic extremists.

-Again, any random person can be called an ‘individual cell’ and be branded a terrorist.

(U) militia movement (U//FOUO)
A rightwing extremist movement composed of groups or individuals who adhere to an antigovernment ideology often incorporating various conspiracy theories. Members oppose most federal and state laws, regulations, and authority (particularly firearms laws and regulations) and often conduct paramilitary training designed to resist perceived government interference in their activities or to overthrow the U.S. overnment through the use of violence. (also: citizens militia, unorganized militia)

-So people who believe in the 2nd amendment are terrorists, even though it says we have the right to bear arms and form militias.

(U) patriot movement (U//FOUO)
A term used by rightwing extremists to link their beliefs to those commonly associated with the American Revolution. The patriot movement primarily comprises violent antigovernment groups such as militias and sovereign citizens. (also: Christian patriots, patriot group, Constitutionalists, Constitutionist)

-If you think the American Revolution was a good thing, or you believe in the Constitution, you are a terrorist.

(U) sovereign citizen movement (U//FOUO)
A rightwing extremist movement composed of groups or individuals who reject the notion of U.S. citizenship. They claim to follow only what they believe to be God’s law or common law and the original 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) to the U.S. Constitution. They believe they are emancipated from all other responsibilities associated with being a U.S. citizen, such as paying taxes, possessing a driver’s license and motor vehicle registration, or holding a social security number. They generally do not recognize federal or state government authority or laws. Several sovereign citizen groups in the United States produce fraudulent documents for their members in lieu of legitimate government-issued forms of identification. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals. They often target government officials and law enforcement. (also: state citizens, freemen, preamble citizens, common law citizens)

-Again if you believe in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, which are the supreme laws of America… you are a terrorist.

(U) tax resistance movement (U//FOUO)
Groups or individuals who vehemently believe taxes violate their constitutional rights. Among their beliefs are that wages are not income, that paying income taxes is voluntary, and that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which allowed Congress to levy taxes on income, was not properly ratified. Members have been known to advocate or engage in criminal activity and plot acts of violence and terrorism in an attempt to advance their extremist goals. They often target government entities such as the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (also: tax protest movement, tax freedom movement, antitax movement)

-Taxes do violate your rights, wages are not income, paying income taxes is voluntary as per IRS code, and the 16th amendment DID NOT receive enough votes to be properly ratified. So if you know the truth and believe it, you are a terrorist.

Read it yourself

Pirate Bay judge is member of Copyright Association

ZDNet
Richard Koman
April 23, 2009

The Pirate Bay may have grounds for a retrial. It turns out that the judge in the case, Tomas Norstrom, might have a slight conflict of interest. He’s a member of the Swedish Copyright Association and sits on the board of Swedish Association for the Protection of Industrial Property.

Peter Althin, the lawyer for TPB cofounder Peter Sunde, said he’s asking the Swedish appeals court to consider ordering a retrial based on the judge’s possible bias, the BBC reports.

“In the autumn I received information that a lay judge could have similar connections. I sent these to the court and the judge was excluded in order to prevent a conflict of interest. It would have been reasonable to then review this situation as well,” Althin told Sveriges Radio.

BBC also offers perspective on Swedish law from former senior attorney Sven-Erik Alhem, who says it’s unlikely this will result in – a former senior attorney in Sweden – said the judge had made an error of judgement, but a retrial was unlikely.

The judge should have told the parties of his other engagements. Had he done that then they could make a decision on whether they wanted him as a judge in their case. I’m not sure the superior court could say that this was unfair, but had he been open then it wouldn’t have been an issue.

The legalities of Swedish judicial ethics aside, this seems to me to be very bad form for a case of such public interest and import. A judicial system needs to appear — and be — independent and unbiased. That’s exactly the image the court strove to present in its very matter-of-fact comments after the decision:

The court first tried whether there was any question of breach of copyright by the file-sharing application and that has been proved, that the offence was committed…

To then find out that a judge has very definite leanings towards one party really makes a mockery of the unbiased judiciary. As Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Swedish Pirate Party, told the BBC:

“The judge in one of Sweden’s most high profile case ever is also a member of an interest organisation for one side and associates with the prosecution trial lawyers in his free time? That is inexcusable corruption.

Again, no idea what the Swedish appeals court will do, but the moral authority of the decision has been critically weakened by this revelation.

New York Times Parrots Debunked Poplawski Smear

Says Pittsburgh shooter left comments on Infowars, yet fails to mention that Poplawski criticized Alex Jones’ anti-racist viewpoint

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, April 7, 2009

The New York Times has thrown its weight behind the smear attack attempting to assign blame to Alex Jones for being an influence in the tragic shooting of three Pittsburgh police officers on Saturday, despite the fact that the killer, Richard Poplawski, openly criticized Jones’ anti-racist political viewpoint.

As we reported yesterday, a major smear attack on Alex Jones and his websites launched by the ADL in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh police shootings which attempted to classify Infowars as an outlet for “hate speech” has been discredited after the ADL’s own website admitted that Richard Poplawski held views that opposed those of the Texas radio talk show host.

Stories claiming that Poplawski was influenced by Alex Jones, Infowars and Prison Planet originally appeared Sunday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Raw Story. Neither of these news organizations attempted to speak with us before claiming the link and Raw Story later issued a retraction and removed us from their original piece altogether after we questioned the sloppy nature of their writer Muriel Kane’s hit piece.

In an article entitled Man Accused in Pittsburgh Killings Voiced Racist Views Online, the New York Times today reports that Poplawski made postings on “Infowars, a Web site affiliated with a radio talk show host, Alex Jones, beginning in late 2007 and continuing until two days before the shootings.”

However, the Times fails to explain the nature of what Poplawski actually said on the Infowars comment boards. In his comments, the cop killer was actually expressing opposition to Alex Jones’ anti-racist political viewpoint and encouraging others to be suspicious of Jones’ motives in bringing people of all races together to stand up to tyranny and corruption.

The fact that the Times makes the connection between Poplawski and Jones, while failing to point out that Poplawski disagreed with Jones’ political viewpoint, underscores the fact that this is a baseless smear intended to take what was a tragic domestic dispute completely out of context in order to demonize anti-establishment media outlets and chill free speech.

As the Pittsburgh Post Gazette reports today, in his postings, “Mr. Poplawski also appears to agree with another poster who criticized Alex Jones, host of a conspiracy theorist radio program and author of an Internet site to which Mr. Poplawski’s friends said he sometimes turned for news.

The fact that Poplawski occasionally visited Infowars (and left a total of 3 comments, hardly the “regular” fan that the media made him out to be), makes Infowars no more guilty for the murder of three police officers than ESPN would be if Poplawski had gone there to check the football results.

There is not a shred of evidence that Poplawski was inspired to kill three cops because he thought he was kick-starting some kind of political revolution. Indeed, it was Poplawski’s own mother that called the police to the house as a result of a domestic dispute because of Poplawski’s dog urinating on the floor. Poplawski did not go out tooled up on a radical political mission to kill cops on the back of reading Infowars, and to imply that there is any causative connection is a defamatory smear.

“If blame is to be laid for the Stanton Heights shootings, Mr. Jones said, it should be placed on the Marine Corps, which Mr. Poplawski’s friends and mother said he had joined only to be thrown out,” reports the Gazette.

“If anybody should be blamed for this it’s the Marines — they’re the ones who trained him to kill,” Mr. Jones said.”

The fact that the ADL and the New York Times ganged up to propagate this smear really shows us that we are hurting the establishment with our message of non-violent, non-racist civil disobedience and urging people of all colors and creeds to come together and resist the new world order.

The desperation of the smear attempt is self-evident and this will only backfire once again to reveal the agenda-driven hatred that the ADL and the decaying establishment media have for the growing liberty movement in America.

New “cybersecurity” legislation major threat to free speech

Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (PDF) – The end of the free Internet, if enacted.

Yet another in an unrelenting series of  legislative attacks on liberty, this bill threatens to usurp ICANN and private domain registrars’ control of DNS (Domain Naming System) in the US.  DNS is the system that maps IP addresses (eg. 255.255.255.255) against names like mydomain.org.

SEC. 9. SECURE DOMAIN NAME ADDRESSING SYSTEM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information shall develop a strategy to implement a secure domain name addressing system. The Assistant Secretary shall publish notice of the system requirements in the Federal Register together with an implementation schedule for Federal agencies and information systems or networks designated by the President, or the President’s designee, as critical infrastructure information systems or networks.

b) COMPLIANCE REQUIRED.—The President shall ensure that each Federal agency and each such system or network implements the secure domain name addressing system in accordance with the schedule published by the Assistant Secretary.

If the feds take control of DNS, they can set their own terms of service and force all hosts onto subdomains, deciding who can and can’t have a web site, blog, email or IM server, etc.  But one thing controlling the DNS will not do is protect networks against hackers.  Almost any type of network connection (except DNS itself) can be made by IP address, bypassing DNS entirely.

I wonder who the president’s “designee” will be.  Perhaps Senator Ted “Series of Tubes” Stevens?

If  these incompetent boobs can’t even secure their own networks now, what makes them think they can do a better job than private industry?  I haven’t been hacked since about ’97 when I ditched Windows NT.  I don’t need their help to secure my DNS servers.  Hey feds- If you want secure systems, start by ditching Windows.  If you can’t even get that thru your heads, how do you expect to take over DNS for the entire friggin Internet?  Who are you going to award the no-bid contract to, Microsoft?

This is about one thing: eliminating the networks that independent citizens use to inform each other and exercise free political speech.  They can’t stand the fact that you have access to real journalism on the web instead of being spoon-fed CNNBCBS propagada on TV.

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY

The President—
. . .
(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network
. . .
(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security

So the president or his designee can simply shut down “critical infrastructure” every time they freak out and decide something is an emergency?  What exactly is critical infrastructure?

SEC. 23. DEFINITIONS.

(3)   FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS.—

The  term ‘‘Federal government and United States critical infrastructure in formation systems and networks’’ includes—

(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

Its whatever they say it is.  No measures, standards, or criteria.

This is not a misguided effort to protect our network infrastructure.  Its a deliberate attack on free speech, and the feds know exactly what they’re doing. According to Reuters, the previous head of the National Cyber Security Center Rod Beckstrom resigned in protest of the over-reaching role the NSA is playing in cyber security.

What is the first objective of a military when attacking any enemy?  Shut down their communications. We are the enemy and this is an attack on the ability of free individuals to communicate with each other.  Please write your congress critters immediately.  If you don’t care about politics, at least think of your 4chan and bittorrent downloads!