Download and burn the entire Cleaves site -
including all attachments and pics - to Disc or Stick.
The burn will result in a browsable ready
resource you can access on or offline
anywhere anytime you wish!
The recent labeling by the government of ‘Anonymous’ and other dissenting and protesting groups as ‘terrorists’ is NOT unexpected and should have been anticipated by activists everywhere -- we are NOT naïve!
There are consequences to everything but especially for activist groups/entities/amorphous (lol) or otherwise that oppose Banking and Corporate criminal elites that have hijacked the law, our democracy and nation -- if any dreamboat imagined these cabals wouldn’t fight back then do yourself and everyone else a favor and go watch American idol!
Call me old fashioned but I like to understand the MEANING of common terms, especially those that are CONSTANTLY bandied about by the powers to JUSTIFY their criminal activities; terms that are PIVOTAL to their reason for being – terms that largely REMAIN legally u-n-d-e-f-i-n-e-d under international convention and law – [I wonder why? Doh!]
Let’s start with, you guessed it, the word, “terrorism;” a word that saturates mass media air-waves and is very familiar, but not completely understood by many!
Most Americans would be surprised to learn that the USA -- the State that most uses the word -- REFUSED to agree to a UN proposal for a universal DEFINITION of, “TERRORISM!” The proposal was made by then Secretary General Kofi Annan in order to easily IDENTIFY ‘terrorists’ and bring them to justice – sure sounded like a very good proposal to me! But the USA dropped its bundle and ran from any universal or legal definition -- can YOU guess why?
A few dictionary definitions may assist at his stage:
1. “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”
2. “[violent] acts which are intended to create fear (terror) … that deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).”
3. “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.”
Very interesting, most dictionary definitions seem to be in agreement so we need not be misled or confused any longer by media demagogues and lying politicians that accuse non-violent protesters of terrorism!
After clarifying meaning the next step is to IDENTIFY the real terrorists among us; now read the above definitions again and it becomes abundantly clear that the USA and NATO are the leading TERRORIST nations, groups in the world today; NOT hackers like ANONYMOUS that kill no-one, or lame, misguided Occupy protesters that are unable to lift a finger to LEGITIMATELY protect themselves from State violence!
The USA and its puppet allies deliberately kill more civilians than all the other nations of the world combined – approximately SIX million since the Indo-Chinese war! Furthermore, which nation CONSTANTLY threatens violence against people, groups and other States? Yep, the USA, which is engaged in threatening nations with war and violence even as I write!
So the next time you witness lame, politicians or puppet presidents bandy that word around and accuse non-violent, dissenting or protesting groups of ‘terrorist’ activity, you will KNOW it is an old, tired and worn propaganda trick of blaming the victim for the crimes 'you' are committing!
Make no mistake whatsoever, THE FACTS ARE CLEAR AND IN EVERYONE’S FACE – THE USA AND NATO are the WORLD’S LEADING CRIMINAL TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS!
Do you think we should now address and REMEDY the PROBLEM of criminal elites running the country?
Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.
RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”
The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it's easier to prosecute under 'knowingly,'” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.
"[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn't supported by the facts," Verheyden-Hilliard adds. "This has always been a bad law."
Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, "Bottom line, it doesn't create any new violations of the law.” So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones’ self.
Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn’t tell by their name), is that they don’t always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.
Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it’s by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.
Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close to the meeting at all.
And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.