Tags for This Article:

Government (3042)  People (2497)  People (1669)  Peace (1371)  Rights (1326)  Peace (1311)  Law (1059)  Terrorism (938)  Violence (890)  Crime (877)  Legislation (701)  GrassRoots (648)  OpEdNews (534)  Discrimination (299)  Awareness (236)  College (236)  Arrest (224)  Guantanamo (221)  Social Justice (190)  Guantanamo (179)  ACLU (178)  Organizations (141)  Speaking (72)  Divide (6) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  (less...)
Add to My Group
December 9, 2007 at 21:12:40

S. 1959 and the Great Social Divide

by Kathryn Smith     Page 1 of 4 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

Put it this way: When a family member of mine sat in a public café in then-Iron Curtain-controlled Budapest, she mentioned the word “government” and our friends immediately jumped all over her: “SSShhhhHHHH!” And this, my friends, came as a result of neighbor being recruited as spy against neighbor. That’s a hint:

Eureka, I’ve got it! Now I know why they are trying to pass S 1959! The Homegrown Terrorism and Violent Radicalization Act is dividing our country, already and even before being passed into law (fear ye thy “terrorist” American neighbor!)

Assumptions motivate or de-motivate, yielding activist pro-activity or non-activity. So it’s important to question assumptions:

How many protestors commit violent acts? The question will answer itself. Because after all, these so-called “homegrown terrorists” and “violent radicalists”, while they do exist, also occur so rarely that they are practically non-existent to begin with.

The obvious conclusion: The purpose of S. 1959 is to plant seeds of watchful suspicion. And there must be a clear purpose for that suspicion to be planted. What is it?

It’s already succeeding beautifully, before even being passed into law: S. 1959 already is pitting neighbor against neighbor. Not only will it result in us suspiciously eyeballing each other and uneducated people “turning each other in” for “coercing” the government----ie holding them accountable-----but (here’s the big “But“) :

IT WILL BREAK UP THE VERY POWERFUL GRASSROOTS ACTIVITY, AND ALREADY IS, BEFORE EVEN ONE CRIME OF “RADICAL VIOLENCE“ HAS BEEN COMMITTED OR EVEN BEEN PLANNED!

See the email I received to illustrate the interactive dynamics in living color:

First, by asking the activist organization below why they are not collecting email signatures to topple S. 1959, it was immediately assumed that I myself support violent activity. Not so! Instead, I know that we already have laws to quell violence, and that it is not necessary and is even suspicious to target activists and college students (very strategic) for such legislating.

Second, it was stated to me in vociferous terms that if I supported such violence (an assumption, once again) that I would be dropped from this grassroots organization’s email alerts!

See how the bill ALREADY is working to break up the grassroots membership and cause disharmony? Before it even has been passed into law? Could this be the entire purpose of S. 1959?


So in order not to repeat such mistakes in the future, please let’s learn from all the points stressed (and interactive scenarios illustrated) in this email below:

----- Original Message -----

From: The P.E.N.

To:

Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 11:21 PM

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

Hello friends I have decided to take a break from political writing for a while and have disconnected my email address correlated with Opednews. If any of you send me a message to my Opednews box and I do not respond, I am not ignoring you: The message simply is not getting through to me because of my disconnected email at home. Thank you and best wishes, Kathryn Smith This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activism: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement on human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves". --Paul Revere, House of Commons

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Representatives Were Threatened with "Martial Law" if Bailout Bill Did Not Pass by Patrick Henningsen

30 Lies Refuted about Ayers and Obama Posted by John Wilson

Those Who Call Obama A Muslim Posted by Rob Kall

What I Learned At The Sarah Palin Rally Before They Threw Me Out! by Linda Milazzo

This is Your Nation on White Privilege Posted by Siv O'Neall

Albright, Clarke, 200 Diplomats Laud Obama's Willingness to Talk Directly to Adversaries Without Preconditions Posted by Stephen Fox

The End of American Hegemony by Paul Craig Roberts

Palin Debate Performance Deconstructed by Steven Leser

Meet The $700 Billion Bailout Czar by Rob Kall

This Is Our Obama! Posted by Donna Roepenack

Go To Top 50 Most Popular