Citizens (voters) alert!

"Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”. ... the real purpose behind the legislation is to codify the move to label gun owners, “anti-government” activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists.
(It cites) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention [or expectation] of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government,” or Other groups or organizations that are [determined by the Attorney General] to be of a violent, extremist nature.
The evidence required ... includes people [possessing tattoos] identifying them with the group, individuals who attend conferences or rallies sponsored by a “hate group,” [people who engage in online discussion forums of an “extremist” nature], people who [possess documents, books or photographs or simply “related materials as defined by the Attorney General” that represent “hate propaganda.]
... (A) recent Department of Homeland Security intelligence assessment [equates gun owners with violent terrorists] ... .

'Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. [It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.']

A similar report was also issued by the DHS at the end of March which listed the “alternative media” (i.e., 'bloggers') with other radical extremist groups and implies that people who disagree with the mass media’s version of events are potential domestic terrorists.
... (T)he federal government apparently has very little concern for any perceived terrorist threat to America coming from the Middle East or al-Qaeda cells within the country, and indeed if any such threat existed we are only in more danger, because the feds have been busy training law enforcement that law-abiding American citizens who exercise their legal right to purchase firearms or who exercise their first amendment right to discuss politics or run websites, are potential terrorists who want to instigate a violent revolution."
THUS, YOU'RE ALREADY IN TROUBLE BY READING THIS POST IF SOME OFFICIAL DOESN'T LIKE YOU!
"... (C)urrent Department of Defense anti-terrorism training course material states that the exercise of First Amendment rights in the U.S. constitutes terrorist activity.
... (T)he Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, as well as police training manuals, ... state that anti-war protesters, gun owners, veterans, [Ron Paul supporters] and those who merely cite the Constitution should be equated with extremists and domestic terrorists.
***The fact that the government is now treating people who merely criticize its conduct as domestic terrorists is the clearest signal possible that the United States has entered a period in history similar to Germany in the early 1930’s and that it can only be a matter of time before the right “emergency” provides the justification for dissidents to be targeted for round-ups and mass imprisonment.***
... HR 645 – the National Emergency Centers Establishment Act ... authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to set up a network of FEMA camp facilities to be used to house U.S. citizens in the event of a [national emergency]. Ominously, the bill also states that the camps can be used to “meet other appropriate needs, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,” an open ended mandate ... . Does anyone remember what happened to Nisei in '42?
(The) “thought crimes” House bill has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act). S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment, ... (allowing) the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states:

'Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)'

In other words, if (Letterman) engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federal prosecution and the prospect of a two year prison term.
The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed [in any way] to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web (in the fasion of Iran, or China?) ...
All of these coordinated moves to demonize informed, armed and pissed off Americans as extremists, terrorists and hate criminals represents the (Congress') final push to brainwash the population into accepting the notion that some Americans are dangerous, that they are enemies of the state, and that they can be targeted in the same way that victims of the “war on terror” are now being targeted across the world – through misappropriation of guilt, torture and indefinite imprisonment."

Read the whole transcript at prisonplanet, of which this is an excerpt (with editorial comments).

Of course, none of this would apply to those who are making up the rules. If we do nothing to protect our illusions of freedom, shame on us. We DESERVE what we get (as terrorists)!

An annual "Tea Party" ...

The Annual Gathering of American Mensa is in progress on its traditional day, this year in Pittsburgh. More than a quarter-century passed, I attended my first (Regional) gathering in Monroeville, and discovered peers noted “tolerant,” if somewhat in some respects, “quirky” (?)--as noted in a journal of that time.
The most influential person in that meeting, a woman then serving as the local leader, has this year succeeded to the position of Chair of the national entity. On a notable weekend shared with her at Laurel Caverns so long ago, we talked of her achieving that goal. In those days (still!), Mensa leadership tended to tyrannical impositions and arbitrary decisions about the supporting membership and dissident members who challenged the methods of governance, an environment she pledged to change.
Over the years, the modus operandi of American Mensa’s board of directors (the American Mensa Committee--’AMC’) has reinforced their “old boy network” and established a self-serving cabal of opportunists sucking on a multimillion dollar teat. All efforts for reform are suppressed by traditional political back-biting and sucker baiting with innuendo, misrepresentations, and all the tricks of incumbents dedicated to maintaining perquisites. It reminds some of our national legislators.
The original premise for the organization was that people of superior intelligence could gather at a “round table” and find solutions for social inequities. Regretfully, as the membership expanded in its first venue, even the founders opted out. Mensa became a “social club” for aberrative personalities, losing the incentive for communal service in a new pretentious arena, citing a collective “genius” of members as a standard for intellectuals. Invitations to contribute support for super-peer status brought financial rewards to staff and administrators beyond the wildest dreams of the founders.
Now is the time of proof for that altruistic young woman who has become an elder, positioned to influence the re-establishment of service goals for the commonweal of a unique community. It is an awesome challenge—to return the society to a “round table,” with emphasis on local group sustenance and true peer status of individual members.
She must find a way to break the hold of super-peers on the direction of the club, and establish a meaningful status for individual members. A principal (principle?) challenge is erasing the mask of secrecy that dominates the administration of the society—one giant leap.
It would be nice if each of us could be proud of our membership.
However, I’m aware of the corrupting influence for senior decision makers, and wonder if altruism can ever overcome greed and the need for self-sustaining influence that seems a historical standard. I’m reminded of the story of Emilio Zapata, as acted by Marlon Brando. A Mexican peasant, Zapata was one of those who came to the attention of a power elite, who “took his name.” Eventually, when his efforts earned him a seat at the head table, he too, “took names.”
A better example to follow, I think, would be that of the founder of Carthage, still celebrated by the fishermen of the eastern Mediterranean. May her ilk prevail!
In my opinion, of course.