Saturday, December 31, 2011

JDL & Far-Right Parties Join Forces

The Israeli and British flags are often flown side-by-side at English Defence League protests [GALLO/GETTY] 

Extremist Jewish Factions and Far-Right Parties Team Up Against "Islamisation" Despite The Latter's Anti-Semitic Past. 

By Nour Samaha 
Last Modified: 28 Dec 2011 13:12 
Courtesy Of "Al-Jazeera"

Right-wing movements previously associated with anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi ideologies are increasingly opting for a surprising tactic to garner legitimacy within mainstream politics: Forging alliances with extremist Jewish organisations under the banner of fighting "Islamisation".

"Far-right parties are professing a new found love of Israel as a way of escaping their past anti-Semitism and racism, and to justify their prejudice towards European Muslims as not being racist," Toby Archer, a researcher who studies far-right parties and the "counter-jihad blogosphere", explained to Al Jazeera. "Parties like the British National Party (BNP) in the UK, Vlaams Belang in Belgium, and the National Front in France are all coming out from a neo-fascist past."

These parties have stopped using anti-Semitic rhetoric, Archer said, which had prevented them from attracting support. It is important to distinguish between the traditional far-right, who are historically anti-Semitic, and the populist new-right, who have emerged in the last two decades and partake in an anti-Muslim discourse, he said.

The English Defence League (EDL) closely linked to the BNP, a right-wing anti-Islamic extremist group based in the UK. The EDL has gained notoriety for its aggression against British Muslims and its links with neo-Nazi groups. Last year, it moved to garner support within the Jewish community by officially opening a Jewish Division open to "represent the Jews who are fighting against Islamisation," according to a statement.

Tommy Robinson, a spokesperson for the EDL, said one of the group's fundamental beliefs was that as a "shining star of democracy", Israel has the right to defend itself. 

"Far-right parties are professing a new found love of Israel as a way of escaping their past anti-Semitism and racism, and to justify their prejudice towards European Muslims as not being racist."
- Toby Archer, researcher
Yet a number of recent demonstrations held by the EDL have continued to be marked by anti-Semitic rhetoric, critics say. In a 2010 demonstration held in Cardiff, EDL members burnt anti-Nazi flags.

BNP leader Nick Griffin has referred to the Holocaust as "the Holohoax" and was convicted in 1998 for distributing material likely to incite racial hatred. He has voiced his support for the EDL and its members. Griffin believes that the EDL is helping politicise young people in the UK. "At least they're trying to do something," he said of the EDL. "It's crude and a bit rough… but we shouldn't condemn them for being a bit rough and ready..."

Invitation Accepted

Signs of lingering anti-Semitism within the UK's far-right have not stopped the Jewish Defence League (JDL), a group the US Federal Bureau of Investigation considers a "violent extremist organisation", from eagerly accepting a partnership with the EDL.

In January 2011, JDL Canada organised a rally in support of the EDLMeir Weinstein, national director of the JDL in Canada, defended its stance, saying the EDL is "taking issue with radical Islam" and supports Israel. Shortly after the rally, mainstream Jewish organisations in Canada publicly distanced themselves from the EDL.

James Clark, an activist with Stop the War Coalition in Canada, has faced the JDL at several rallies. He believes that Jewish groups are shifting towards far-right nationalists, rather than the other way around.

"The JDL has tried to move their politics to the right," he told Al Jazeera. "They are quite a fringe organisation, but made a bit more respectable by more mainstream Zionist organisations that give them a platform; organisations who support them, but don't feel safe saying the same thing in public."

He added that the JDL is obsessed with Muslims and the Muslim community, and prays on the irrational fear that Canada might soon be run by Sharia Law.

The JDL also purports to have significant influence over the Canadian government, who Clark describes as "far and above the US government as Israel's best friend".

According to Weinstein, the JDL was able to sway the government from banning George Galloway, a pro-Palestinian British MP, from entering the country in 2009 due to his outspoken sympathies for Hamas. 

For Daniel Freeman-Maloy, a Canadian activist and research student at the European Centre for Palestine Studies at Exeter University, the JDL is the product of a larger issue.

"[As Jews] we want to exist, and take measures to ensure we do exist... we will ally ourselves with anyone who will fight alongside us against that evil."

- Meir Weinstein, national director of JDL in Canada
"It is important to highlight that this is not an isolated group", he told Al Jazeera. "It is a symptom of unapologetic ethno-religious chauvinism that has been left to develop unchecked."

Weinstein, however, sees it as a fight for survival.
"[As Jews] we want to exist, and take measures to ensure we do exist," he said. "We take that seriously, and we will ally ourselves with anyone who will fight alongside us against that evil."

Shaky Theological Convergence

While the US has been credited with having the most visible pro-Israeli rhetoric, JDL supporters in the US seem to be somewhat different than those in Canada and Europe.

In the past, the US JDL chapter has been linked to a string of bombings against Arab-American targets. It is suspected of carrying out the assassination of Alex Odeh, the regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the planned attack on Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa.

Max Blumenthal, a journalist following right-wing movements, believes that the US JDL chapters no longer represent as extreme a viewpoint as they once did, but have now gone mainstream.

At a rally in November 2011, Texas Governor and Christian right representative Rick Perry was seen hugging Dov Hikind, a former leader of the JDL. 

For Blumenthal, the alliance between the US right-wing and Jewish extremists is forged on a theological convergence.

"Christians who are sympathetic to the JDL mentality are Christian-Zionists", he explained. "They are waiting for 'the Rapture', and part of the fulfillment is the gathering of all Jews into Biblical Israel, which means the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."

Ironically, part of the Rapture mythology is that all non-Christians will perish on that day, including Jews.

The Fight For Israel

In Europe, the JDL appears to be expanding. They have recently opened a UK branch (French, German, Swedish, Danish and Austrian chapters are already in existence) and an all-encompassing European umbrella organisation. 

The JDL Europe's membership is reported to be around 3,000, with more than 5,000 supporters.

Steven Weigang, founder and chief executive officer of the JDL Europe and the German branch, said the group is "necessary to prevent another holocaust. The anti-Semitism is growing in Europe and we can't just stand on the side-lines."

He reaffirmed that JDL Europe shares the views of JDL Canada and its relationship with the EDL, without addressing the EDL's links to the BNP.

Right-wing groups are gravitating towards the JDL, rather than the other way around, but more in terms of policy towards Israel rather than sharing the same ideology, Weigang said.

"I think the Right in Europe is moving towards sharing our politics", he said. "The Europeans feel that what is [happening] in Israel [is] on the agenda… I am not sure if they share the same visions as we do. They maybe say it, but they don't mean it."

"It is necessary to prevent another holocaust. The anti-Semitism is growing in Europe and we can't just stand on the side-lines." 
- Steve Weigang, founder and CEO of JDL Europe 
In France, the JDL has always maintained an active role: It is known for accosting pro-Palestinian rallies, vandalising property, and lobbying the government whenever it perceives pro-Palestinian gestures. In September, the French chapter of the JDL called on its members with military experience to go "defend" the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Samuel Ghiles Meilhac, a historian who specialises in the French Jewish community, told Al Jazeera that there has been a distinct shift in the community from its previous alignment with the left towards the right.

While representatives of mainstream Jewish organisations are not associated with right-wing parties like the National Front at the moment, Meilhac thinks this could change. In recent years, the National Front has been pandering to Jewish voters by focusing on a "common enemy: the Islamisation of Europe".

"Most people who are part of the Jewish mainstream in France remember the 1970s and 1980s when the National Front were making jokes about what happened in World War II," Meilhac said. "But the question is: If the extreme right doesn't make references to the Jews now, will there still be people in the Jewish mainstream powerful enough to reject them?"

The Coming Accidental War With Iran

By Lyric Hughes Hale 
Published on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 
Courtesy Of "Common Dreams"

Our attention has been rightfully turned to the stomach-churning photos of women being dragged by the hair through the streets of Egypt and Bahrain, and reports of yet more deaths in Syria. As this year ends however, it is worth noting with a bit of apprehension that Iran has been relatively quiet compared to its neighbors. In fact, when John Dudin of the New York Council on Foreign Relations reviewed the ten most significant developments in the Middle East in 2011 Iran did not make the list at all--even after the downing of the US drone earlier this month. Either things are improving and we are learning to better deal with Iran, or this is merely a pause in a decades-long estrangement which could turn violent, providing a shock to the global economy it might not be able to withstand.
Iran Navy Commander Admiral Habibollah Sayari gives a press conference in Tehran about this week's navy drills (AFP/Hamed Jafarnejad)War with Iran would mean the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, where the Iranian Navy began ten days of war games to practice doing just that on December 24th. At least 30% of all seaborne oil shipments pass through this chokepoint. Oil prices have been rising on the strength of the maneuvers alone: an actual blockade would double the price of oil overnight.
Now that America's withdrawal from Iraq has been formalized, and Osama bin Laden, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and Zine el Abidine Ben Ali have all been vanquished, after a year of unbelievable changes throughout the Middle East, my prediction is that Iran is about to regain center stage in the region. As a result of the US withdrawal, Iraq could be prone to more violence, and the Iranian leadership must certainly have taken note that none of the toppled leaders, including Sadam Hussein, possessed formal nuclear capabilities.
The first act is already being played out in Syria, the only Arab state to align itself with Iran, and in the streets of Bahrain, its neighbor under Saudi control. The Saudis and the Israelis are mulling diplomatic as well as military options to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability in a revolutionary neighborhood. How successful have their covert operations been in 2011? Narimon Safavi, Iran expert and contributor to our book What's Next? thinks that they have been quite effective, and that now is not the time to change tactics. Changing the status quo would be of no benefit to Obama either.
Trita Parsi, head of a Washington think tank focused on Iran and author of an upcoming book by Yale University Press, A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran believes that the Obama Administration has abandoned diplomacy often and quickly, and that this could create an accidental crisis that could spin out of control quickly. A desperate Iran--its currency has lost half of its exchange value in the past two months--might make desperate decisions.
Indeed, the US is moving to isolate Iran. The US Treasury Department announced new Iran sanctions in 2011. Congressional action is expected which would make it difficult for financial institutions in third countries to do business with Iran, and for the Iranians to get paid for their oil. Diplomatic overtures by Hilary Clinton and the State Department urged India to join the oil embargo against Iran. This is an initiative that seems to be supported across institutional and party lines, unlike almost any other issue in Washington.
Pressure against Iran can be subtle and pervasive, and is not confined to business. I am a board member of NIAC, National Iranian American Council. Members are mostly Iranian expats here in the US who support cultural exchange and a peaceful relationship between the US and Iran. After submitting a grant proposal, NIAC was recently told that the Macarthur Foundation "does not currently provide support for projects related to Iran". They are not alone; this is true of many major foundations in the US, which I find astonishing. Less knowledge of Iran than we already have will hardly augment our understanding of a country that we all agree is of such strategic importance to our national interests.
Persian, the official language of Iran, and its cousins are spoken throughout the Middle East, and it has been deemed a critical language. The year I graduated from the University of Chicago, one of the few centers of Middle Eastern studies in the US, other than myself there was only one other undergraduate who majored in Near Eastern Studies with Persian as the language elective. Things are not much better today. According to the Modern Language Association, only .001% of language learners in institutions of higher learning study Persian, about 2000 students nationwide. On the other hand, I have seldom (maybe never) met an Iranian college graduate who did not speak English. And unlike Michelle Bachman, all of them know that we do not have an embassy anymore in Tehran.
The point is, and the point that Trita Parsi makes in his excellent new book, is that due to the lack of understanding between our government and Iranian leaders who have been isolated from the rest of the world, war will not be a decision, but a mistake. Both nations face political transition and deadlock, and Parsi says in an oped in the Los Angeles Times that in this impossible landscape diplomacy can falter:
In Iran, political cannibalism within the Iranian elite has reached new heights. While this has not necessarily given birth to a new Iranian adventurism (beyond the harsh rhetoric), it has paralyzed the state and weakened its ability to maneuver in a changing strategic environment. This is particularly the case when it comes to crucial issues such as its relations with the United States.
The U.S. military leadership is rightfully worried about this situation. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael G. Mullen, has repeatedly raised the lack of communication between the United States and Iran as a major concern in the last few weeks.
"We are not talking to Iran so we don't understand each other," Mullen said last month. "If something happens ... it's virtually assured that we won't get it right." The lack of communication has planted seeds for miscalculation, Mullen argued. And miscalculations often lead to dangerous escalations.
Parsi faults Obama for allowing the same neoconservatives who brought us the war in Iraq to frame the Iran debate as well, for not creating "a new metric of success in our dealings with Iran." He quotes Albert Einstein: "You cannot prevent and prepare for war at the same time".
Here in Chicago, I take comfort in Narimon Safavi's opinion that actually things might be getting better between Iran and the US. He agrees that the recent handling of the drone incident, whatever the backstory on that might be, could be an example of a successful handling of a crisis. Both sides have nothing to gain from war, and it is an election year in both countries, so domestic concerns will be a priority.
I hope Safavi is right. I do agree with Parsi however that we need to create a new metric, change our frame of reference and institute smarter policies. If success can only can be claimed if Iran is never allowed to have a nuclear weapon, then we are probably bound for a major policy failure.
Giving up on this goal is just one example of how I think we need to change the way we deal with Iran. Given the neighborhood that Iran inhabits, and the US military presence there, it is not irrational for Iran to consider nuclear armaments. By treaty, Iran is entitled to build and develop nuclear energy, and that is what they say they are doing. The received wisdom however is that the nuclear materials that are used for this purpose are a hop, skip and a jump away from creating a nuclear weapon, and this "we cannot allow".
No matter what the protestations are from Washington or the denials from Tehran, I firmly believe that ten years from now Iran and perhaps many other countries will have nuclear warfare capabilities just as Pakistan does today. We can delay things, by assassinating physicists and also attacking software. But eventually, they are going to have a nuclear weapons capability. Given that, wouldn't it make more sense for us to ensure that we are part of the process, and that development is transparent? I would even give them aid to ensure that we are deeply involved.
Also on my list: stop calling Iran a "failed state" which it is not, it is rather a totalitarian state, reopen diplomatic relations at some level, increase educational funding in the US for all things Iranian, hold high-level discussions with the Iranian-American community and enlist their aid (Obama has never met with Parsi, and should) increase cultural exchanges of all kinds, do everything possible to protest human rights abuses in Iran, increase rather than decrease business ties, link their currency to the US dollar...wait, that all sounds just like Nixon's China policy! Maybe this is something a Democrat just cannot do.
"The Concourse of the Birds" painted by Habib Allah. The hoopoe, center right, instructs the other birds on the Sufi path.My July article for Yale Books on Iran focused on the threat of a major earthquake in Tehran, and I called it "A Lamentation of Black Swans: Economic Disaster in Iran".
Given my love of unusual plural words, I was delighted when I was recently given lovely present by a friend who knows of my interest in Persian culture. It is a book, beautifully conceived and illustrated byPeter Sis, based upon the famous Persian poem "The Conference of the Birds". The story is about the gathering of birds of all kinds and types, who are brought together by the fear of an unspecified danger. In order to escape this peril, they fly together to faraway valleys to find their mysterious, god-like ruler, Simorgh so that he might save them. After reaching the mountain of Kaf where Simorgh resides, they see their own images in the mirrored surface, and discover that they themselves are their leader. Simorgh exists inside every one of them.
There is a wonderful lesson here. If there is danger ahead, then perhaps we would all be wise not to depend upon our leaders, and instead, depend upon ourselves collectively and individually, to ensure that we will not find ourselves at war once again. War with Iran would be irrational, and is the biggest black swan event of 2012 with the potential to derail the fragile economic recovery we are now experiencing. Both Safavi and Parsi agree that it is a possibility under certain circumstances, and therefore we need to consider the damage that would result, and do everything in our power as citizens to prevent it. Better not to place all of our hopes in our leaders. Wikileaks in many ways represented the end of the old diplomacy, when everything was kept secret from the huddled masses. We must now become our own diplomats.

Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention

Merry Christmas, US Senate 

By Ralph Lopez 
Dec-25-2011 17:57 
Courtesy Of "Salem-News" 

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.

(HELENA) - Moving quickly on Christmas Day after the US Senate voted 86 - 14 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA) which allows for the indefinite military detention of American citizens without charge or trial, Montanans have announced the launch of recall campaigns against Senators Max Baucus and Jonathan Tester, who voted for the bill.

Montana is one of nine states with provisions that say that the right of recall extends to recalling members of its federal congressional delegation, pursuant to Montana Code 2-16-603, on the grounds of physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of certain felony offenses.

Section 2 of Montana Code 2-16-603 reads:
"(2) A public officer holding an elective office may be recalled by the qualified electors entitled to vote for the elective officer's successor."

The website cites eight other states which allow for the recall of elected federal officials: Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, and Wisconsin. New Jersey's federal recall law was struck down when a NJ state judge ruled that "the federal Constitution does not allow states the power to recall U.S. senators," despite the fact the Constitution explicitly allows, by not disallowing ("prohibited" in the Tenth Amendment,) the states the power to recall US senators and congressmen:

"The powers not...prohibited...are reserved to the States...or to the people." - Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of federal official recall has never reached the federal courts.

Montana law requires grounds for recall to be stated which show conformity to the allowed grounds for recall. The draft language of the Montana petitions, "reason for recall" reads:

"The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees all U.S citizens:

"a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011 (NDAA 2011) permanently abolishes the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, "for the duration of hostilities" in the War on Terror, which was defined by President George W. Bush as "task which does not end" to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Those who voted Aye on December 15th, 2011, Bill of Rights Day, for NDAA 2011 have attempted to grant powers which cannot be granted, which violate both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Montana Recall Act stipulates that officials including US senators can only be recalled for physical or mental lack of fitness, incompetence, violation of the oath of office, official misconduct, or conviction of a felony offense. We the undersigned call for a recall election to be held for Senator Max S. Baucus [and Senator Jonathan Tester] and charge that he has violated his oath of office, to protect and defend the United States Constitution."

Montana residents William Crain and Stewart Rhodes are spearheading the drive. Mr. Crain is an artist. Mr. Rhodes is an attorney, Yale Law School graduate, and the national president of the organization Oath Keepers, who are military and law enforcement officers, both former and active duty, who vow to uphold their Oath to the US Constitution and to disobey illegal orders which constitute attacks on their fellow citizens.  Rhodes said:

"These politicians from both parties betrayed our trust, and violated the oath they took to defend the Constitution. It's not about the left or right, it's about our Bill of Rights. Without the Bill of Rights, there is no America. It is the Crown Jewel of our Constitution, and the high-water mark of Western Civilization."
Two Medals of Honor - Marine Gen. Smedley Butler

Rhodes noted that:

"Two time Medal of Honor winner Marine General Smedley Butler once said "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. Time to fight. "

Butler famously ended his career as a Marine General by touring the country with his speech and book denouncing war, "War is a Racket."Butler confessed that he had spent most of his life as a "high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers...a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism..."

Eighteen states at present have recall laws, most of which do not apply to federal officials. For these and other states to recall federal officials, state legislatures would have to first pass or amend such laws.

Rising on the House floor to oppose the bill based on the military detention provisions for Americans, Rep. Tom McClintock said before the House vote:

" today, we who have sworn fealty to that Constitution sit to consider a bill that affirms a power contained in no law and that has the full potential to crack the very foundation of American liberty."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said in opposing the final NDAA:

”This bill also contains misguided provisions that in the name of fighting terrorism essentially authorize the indefinite imprisonment of American citizens without charges.”

And in a New York Times op-ed piece by two retired four-star U.S. Marine generals, Charles Krulak and Joseph Hoar, Krulak and Hoar said that "Due process would be a thing of the past."

Montana would be the first recall drive to be launched as a result of the vote for the NDAA military detentions provisions. A number of Facebook pages appeared after the passage of the bill from locations across the country.


Facebook: "Recall Every Congressman Who Voted for the NDAA"

"Recalling Senators and Congressmen"

"How to Recall US Senators and Congressmen"

Special thanks to Daily Kos

SOPA: Endgame Is Total Internet Censorship

Web Blacklist Legislation Latest Assault On Free Flow Of Information 

By Steve Watson 
Article posted Dec 29 2011, 1:46 AM 
Courtesy Of "Information Liberation"

The Stop Online Piracy Act is not intended to make the internet more secure or even to protect copyrighted material. Its sole purpose is to codify First amendment killing actions already being undertaken by an out of control federal government.

Media talking heads and bloggers alike continue to debate the technicalities of the legislation, however, it is clear that SOPA and PIPA, (Protecting IP Act) the Senate version of the bill, form a double pronged attack on the free and open internet. The bills constitute weapons of mass destruction in the infowar, a huge leap forward for the long running agenda to completely re-structure and centralize the internet under government control.

As detailed in depth in an excellent article today in The Globe and Mail, should the legislation be signed into law in January, it will provide the U.S. government, through the office of the Attorney General, the power to pursue court orders against any site believed to be engaging in or ‘facilitating’ ‘copyright infringement’. The problem being that the bill’s definition of such terms is so broad that entire web sites could come under threat of being effectively seized and shut down for merely displaying one offending hyperlink.

Some felonies under SOPA, such as “streaming copyrighted content” – again the terminology is vague at best – carry a five-year prison sentence.

As we reported back in October, the bill will also force compliance from search engines and Internet Service Providers, demanding they create a list of banned web sites and prevent their users from accessing the sites. Advertising networks, payment providers and credit card processors would also be ordered to stop doing business with any site deemed to be acting unlawfully under SOPA.

“…all those entities are compelled to comply. Indeed, the bill imposes stiff penalties on anyone who doesn't, and offers immunity to ad networks and payment processors that follow orders. As such, SOPA is chock-full of incentives for ISPs, content-hosting sites and other such entities to go along with the government's demands.” writes Omar El Akkad of The Globe & Mail.

SOPA is not legislating for anything that the government isn’t already engaged in carrying out. The Department of Homeland Security has already seized dozens of web sites merely for linking to copyrighted material, despite the fact that such material isn't even hosted on the web site itself, a process the Electronic Frontier Foundation has criticized as, "Blunt instruments that cause unacceptable collateral damage to free speech rights." Most recently, the DHS seized a popular music blog and shut down the web site for over a year on charges it now admits were completely false.

Under SOPA, even domain name server (DNS) forwarding, a core functionality of the internet as a whole, would have to be suspended for any site accused of “piracy”. Enacting the legislation would constitute a massive internet-wide operation, and may be part of the reason why backlash, even corporate backlash, is continuing to grow against it.

Furthermore, experts contend that anyone who is determined to download pirated content from a forbidden site could easily switch their computer settings to bypass SOPA restrictions, by using a foreign-based DNS, for example.

In short, intense lobbying from the entertainment industry, urging the government to protect copyrighted content, is being used as yet another front by an establishment hell bent on restricting freedom of speech and the free flow of information to ramp up a long running crack down on the internet.

As we have ceaselessly documented, legislation is being drafted left, right and center in an effort to ensure complete control over cyberspace.

Lawmakers like Senator Joe Lieberman have teamed up with Department of Homeland Security officials to push draconian legislation in an effort to mimic the Communist Chinese system of policing the Internet.

Legislation such as The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act is written around the notion that big government decides who can say what on the web. The nightmare vision provides the President the power to shut down the entire Internet with a figurative flick of a switch.

Simultaneously, legislation such as The Cybersecurity Act and the “Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011″propose allowing the federal government to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen's information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications.

The push to restrict and control the internet, as we have repeatedly warned for years, is being pursued by an elite few petrified at the fact that alternative and independent sources of information are now eclipsing corporate and government controlled outlets in terms of audience share, trust, and influence.

Regulation and censorship of the Internet would not only represent a massive assault on free speech, it would also create new roadblocks for e-commerce and as a consequence further devastate the economy. The move should be met with fierce opposition at every level and from across the political spectrum.

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones', and He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.