Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?

Dissident Voice
by Maidhc Ó Cathail / June 30th, 2010

It would be hard to think of anyone who has done more to undermine American freedoms than Joseph Lieberman.

Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the “global war on terror” which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.

On October 11, 2001, exactly one month after 9/11, Lieberman introduced S. 1534, a bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Since then, he has been the main mover behind such draconian legislation as the Protect America Act of 2007, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, and the proposed Terrorist Expatriation Act, which would revoke the citizenship of Americans suspected of terrorism. And now the senator from Connecticut wants to kill the Internet.

According to the bill he recently proposed in the Senate, the entire global internet is to be claimed as a “national asset” of the United States. If Congress passes the bill, the US President would be given the power to “kill” the internet in the event of a “national cyber-emergency.” Supporters of the legislation say this is necessary to prevent a “cyber 9/11″ – yet another myth from the fearmongers who brought us tales of “Iraqi WMD” and “Iranian nukes.”

Lieberman’s concerns about the internet are not new. The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which Lieberman chairs, released a report in 2008 titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report claimed that groups like al-Qaeda use the internet to indoctrinate and recruit members, and to communicate with each other.

Immediately after the report was published, Lieberman asked Google, the parent company of You Tube, to “immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations.” That might sound like a reasonable request. However, as far as Lieberman is concerned, Hamas, Hezbollah and even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are terrorist organizations.

It’s hardly surprising that Lieberman’s views on what constitute terrorism parallel those of Tel Aviv. As Mark Vogel, chairman of the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee (PAC) in the United States, once said: “Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman.”

Lieberman has been well-rewarded for his patriotism – to another country. In the past six years, he has been the Senate’s top recipient of political contributions from pro-Israel PACs with a staggering $1,226,956.

But what is it that bothers Lieberman so much about the internet? Could it be that it allows ordinary Americans access to facts which reveal exactly what kind of “friend” Israel has been to its overgenerous benefactor? Facts which they have been denied by the pro-Israel mainstream media.

How much faith would American voters have in the likes of Lieberman, who claims that the Jewish state is their greatest ally, if they knew that Israeli agents planted firebombs in American installations in Egypt in 1954 in an attempt to undermine relations between Nasser and the United States; that Israel murdered 34 American servicemen in a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967; that Israeli espionage, most notably Jonathan Pollard’s spying, has done tremendous damage to American interests; that five Mossad agents were filming and celebrating as the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001; that Tel Aviv and its accomplices in Washington were the source of the false pre-war intelligence on Iraq; and about countless other examples of treachery?

In his latest attempt to censor the internet, does Lieberman really want to protect the American people from imaginary cyber-terrorists? Or is he just trying to protect his treasonous cronies from the American people?

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a freelance writer. His work has been published by Al Jazeera Magazine, Antiwar.com, Dissident Voice, Khaleej Times, Palestine Chronicle and many other publications. Read other articles by Maidhc.

Fine of $50,000 + prison for refusing to export to Israel

This was linked from Reddit today:

http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm

“The penalties imposed for each “knowing” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. During periods when the EAR are continued in effect by an Executive Order issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the criminal penalties for each “willful” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years.”

Apparently it’s illegal in the US to refuse to export products to the genocidal, apartheid state of Israel.  I should have assumed, considering the deep infiltration of Zionists in our government and corporate media, but somehow this still came as a shock.

Hal Turner a Trained FBI Agent Provocateur

I’ve been saying this for a year or more.  Only an agent of the government would be allowed to stay on the airwaves inciting violence without prosecution for that long.  And that elaborate amero hoax, with real fabricated coins– it was too high budget for some lone nut blogger.

Beware patriots, they internet is crawling with pr agents, racist provocateurs, fake bloggers, and software for manipulating social bookmark sites.

Radio talk show host and blogger Hal Turner was an FBI trained agent provocateur, his attorney told reporters in Hartford today. The supposed white supremacist worked for the agency from 2002 until 2007. “His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest,” Michael Orozco told the Associated Press.

Earlier this year Turner told his blog readers to “take up arms” against Connecticut lawmakers. He also said government officials should “obey the Constitution or die.” In June he wrote that the Illinois federal appeals judges “deserve to be killed” because they issued a ruling that upheld ordinances in Chicago and suburban Oak Park banning handguns. Turner included photos of the judges and the room numbers of their chambers at the courthouse.

Orozco said he plans First Amendment defenses in both the Connecticut and Illinois cases.

Under COINTELPRO in the 1960s and early 70s, the FBI used a variety of dirty tricks against its targets including wiretapping and assassination — as well as the use of agents provocateurs — in coordination with state and local police.

As the case against Turner and the revelations of his attorney reveal, the government did not abandon its COINTELPRO tactics, as it claimed in the mid 1970s. The FBI, acting as the establishment’s political secret police, continues to undermine political movements the elite consider dangerous and a threat to their control and influence.

Members of the patriot movement in particular should take note of Turner’s revelations. The government is not interested in subverting the globalist foundation comprised and neutered so-called left but rather a growing patriot movement that demands an end to the Federal Reserve, a return to a constitutional republic, and resistance to predatory globalism and world government.

Hal Turner specifically attempted to appeal to the patriot movement and the constitutionalists. It should serve as a wake-up call that the FBI trained him as an agent provocateur.

L.A. Times Op-Ed: Anti-Zionism Is Hate Crime

UCLA professor conflates Judaism and political doctrine of Zionism in an attempt to argue criticism of Israel is racist

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, March 17, 2009

A prominent L.A. Times editorial confuses the political movement of Zionism with semites as a race in an attempt to argue that anti-Zionism is worse than anti-Semitism and should be treated as a hate crime.

The op-ed, written by Judea Pearl, the father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl, asks in its headline, Is anti-Zionism Hate? The question is answered by the sub headline, “Yes. It is more dangerous than anti-Semitism, threatening lives and peace in the Middle East.”

Pearl is a professor at UCLA and the president of the Daniel Pearl Foundation, which includes amongst its honorary members Bill Clinton, the Queen of Jordan and writer Eliezer Wiesel, who has attracted controversy for his support of Jewish terrorist group Irgun and his indifference to historical massacres of Palestinians.

Noam Chomsky criticized Wiesel for once stating, “I support Israel—period. I identify with Israel—period. I never attack, never criticize Israel when I am not in Israel.”

The L.A. Times article essentially tries to argue that everyone, particularly academia, should adhere to Wiesel’s mantra and refrain from criticizing the government of Israel and its policies. It does so by deliberately and underhandedly conflating Jews, Israel and ZIonism into one single entity.

Pearl states that criticism of Zionism is “discriminatory,” “immoral,” and “dangerous,” because it “rejects the very notion that Jews are a nation — a collective bonded by a common history — and, accordingly, denies Jews the right to self-determination in their historical birthplace.”

Jews are a nation? That’s news to me – last time I checked Judaism was not a race or a nation, it was a religion.

Very early in the article, Jews, Zionism and Israel have lost all definition and are conflated as one and the same.

“Anti-Semitism rejects Jews as equal members of the human race; anti-Zionism rejects Israel as an equal member in the family of nations,” writes Pearl, further conflating Zionism with some kind of biblical legacy by claiming that, “Jews are a nation first and religion second….the unshaken conviction in their eventual repatriation to the birthplace of their history has been the engine behind Jewish endurance and hopes throughout their turbulent journey that started with the Roman expulsion in AD 70.”

Again, Pearl’s agenda is to veil Zionism with the camouflage of Judaism and the country of Israel. Zionism is not a country and it does not have a biblical history to ally it with Judaism as Pearl attempts to argue. According to the dictionary definition, Zionism is a “movement of world Jewry that arose late in the 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.” It has no connection whatsoever with “the birthplace of their history” or “the Roman expulsion in AD 70″ as Pearl claims.

Additionally, labeling Jews as a race is completely asinine. One can make the case that semites are a race, but even in this case such a definition would include “any of various ancient and modern people originating in southwestern Asia,” according to Wikipedia.

In attempting to make the case that Zionism wholly represents Jews as a race of people and Israel as a country, Pearl tries to scoff at and downplay the massive number of Jews who oppose the Zionist political doctrine.

Groups such as Jews Not Zionists, True Torah Jews Against Zionism, and Neturei Karta – Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism, represent a significant number of Jews who make the case that “The ideology of Zionism is in total opposition to the teachings of traditional Judaism”.

“There are in fact many Jewish movements, groups and organizations whose ideology regarding Zionism and the so-called “State of Israel” is that of the unadulterated Torah position that any form of Zionism is heresy and that the existence of the so-called “State of Israel” is illegitimate,” according to the JewsNotZionists organization.

As we have vehemently argued, Zionists are attempting to equate anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism as a means of silencing opposition to their brutal political agenda. This has nothing to do with protecting Jewish people against racism and everything to do with shutting down criticism of the Israeli government and its warmongering policies which, with the support of the U.S. elite, have made life a living hell for both Jews and Muslims in the Middle East for centuries.