I am neither Democrat nor Republican I have no political affiliation. The way I see it there is no good side there both the same. I just express my comments based on the way I feel. Follow us on twitter!
PEOPLE I HAVE EXPOSED A GOVERNMENT AGENT HERE ON YOUTUBE WHO REPORTS FREEDOM LOVING PATRIOTS WHO SUPPORT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, AND OTHER GOD GIVEN RIGHTS GIVEN UNTO US BY GOD AND THE GOVERNMENT COINTELPRO AGENT’S NAME IS teejate AND THANKS TO WHAT I HAVE LEARNED IS THAT YOUTUBE IS NO LONG RUN BY WE THE PEOPLE BUT BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT. THIS IS TRULY THE SADDEST DAY FOR OUR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. THE YOUTUBE YOU’VE ONCE KNOWN IS NOW DEAD. THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT COINTELPRO AGENT I WILL BE FOREVER BANNED AND MIGHT END UP BEING ARRESTED BASED ON A LIE BY THIS TRAITOR teejate FOR HE HAS LIED TO THE YOUTUBE MODERATORS AND THE FBI BY SAYING THAT I’VE MADE DEATH THREATS AGAINST PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA WHEN I NEVER MADE THESE THREATS BECAUSE IT IS NOT A NICE THING TO DO. SO I MUST SAY FAREWELL TO YOU ALL MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL FREEDOM PATRIOTS WHO FIGHT FOR FREEDOM AGAINST TYRANNY BY THE GOVERNMENTS ALL AROUND THE WORLD. PLEASE PRAY FOR ME FOR I MAY END UP A MARTYR FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE TRUE TRUTH MOVEMENT WHO HAVE EXPOSED THE LIES OF THE PSYCOPATHS IN THE HIGHEST SEATS OF GOVERNMENTS ALL AROUND THE WORLD. SONG USED IN THIS VIDEO IS BLACK HOLE SUN BY SOUNDGARDEN THE COINTELPRO PROGRAM IS USED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO DIDISCREDIT, DISRUPT AND DESTROY GROUPS THEAT THEY DO NOT LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE THEY HAVE USED THE COINTELPRO TO STOP THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN USED TO DESTROY PEOPLES RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ETC. DON’T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT RESEARCH AND …
Most news media mostly do the five things: 1) Rephrase press releases by corporations and government officials. 2) Add surface-level facts. 3) Assume sourcing from only corporate or government sources is necessary. 4) Assume that corporate or government sources are credible. 5) Sensationalism. This video aims to clear up these errors, mistakes, and oversights. This video also aims to send a message of our own against the legal and extralegal measures taken against animal rights and environmental activism. Resistance against injustice is fertile. Join the Coalition to Abolish the AETA abolishtheaeta.org Support the “AETA 4″ www.aeta4.org & myspace.com/aeta4 Support the “AETA 2″ supportbjandalex.com & myspace.com/supportbjandalex Related Video: www.youtube.com Keep Updated: “Green Is The New Red” greenisthenewred.com
COPENHAGEN, Denmark — Freedom of speech around the world has been a hallmark of Christian civilization, but today there is less and less freedom to criticize Islam. In Denmark, a 15-year-old Danish boy faces prison time for distributing leaflets warning that the country could someday become a Muslim nation and that he thinks that is a bad thing. A Danish prosecutor called the leaflets “hate speech.” Yet, across the water in Sweden, it was not hate speech when a leading national newspaper printed an article a few weeks ago claiming that Israeli soldiers harvest and sell organs from dead Palestinians. Some say that claim amounts to the anti-Semitic Jewish blood libel, that Jews commit human sacrifice on non-Jews. The Swedish government, which defended the newspaper, said it was free speech. Welcome to Europe, where many say the difference between free speech and hate speech is dictated by left-wing political correctness and fear of Islam. “Free speech is coming under increasing pressure by the day,” Lars Hedegaard, head of the International Free Press Society, told CBN News. It does not matter if the criticism is factual. For instance, Islam teaches that when Mohammed was 52, he consummated his marriage to a 9-year-old girl. But when Austrian politician Susanne Winter said that, in today’s world, Mohammed would be considered a child molester, she was convicted of hate speech. Dutch Parliament member Geert Wilders is awaiting trial on the charge of “inciting hatred and …
America, your government was set up by the people, for the people, to serve the people. A small percentage of your society is immoral and violent, so the people set up a government to protect them from that small percentage. Today, that small percentage of immoral and violent people in your society are now in control of your government. Why would a government FOR the people keep secrets and lie TO the people? The only answer is that it is no longer FOR the people. We advice you to exercise what rights you still have: The freedom of speech. The freedom of Choice. The freedom to peaceful assembly. We are with you, and support you in taking back your country. We are your brothers and sisters. We are Your Family. We are You. We are Anonymous. We are ONE, divided by NONE. WE RUN THIS.
This speech is from a debate at Hart House, University of Toronto. Christopher Hitchens’ speech is in favor of decriminalizing hate speech, and why that free speech must include hate speech. The debate (and lecture by Hitchens), which included members from Canada’s government, was a bill, then in discussions, regarding the decriminalization of hate speech, insofar as it is protected speech irrespective of its reprehensibility.
This speech is from a debate at Hart House, University of Toronto. Christopher Hitchens’ speech is in favor of decriminalizing hate speech, and why that free speech must include hate speech. The debate (and lecture by Hitchens), which included members from Canada’s government, was a bill, then in discussions, regarding the decriminalization of hate speech, insofar as it is protected speech irrespective of its reprehensibility.
This speech is from a debate at Hart House, University of Toronto. Christopher Hitchens’ speech is in favor of decriminalizing hate speech, and why that free speech must include hate speech. The debate (and lecture by Hitchens), which included members from Canada’s government, was a bill, then in discussions, regarding the decriminalization of hate speech, insofar as it is protected speech irrespective of its reprehensibility.
December 10, 1993 www.amazon.com Research into the media and violence attempts to determine whether a link between consuming media violence and subsequent aggressive and violent behavior exists. Although some social scientists support this link, methodological and theoretical problems with the existing literature limit interpretation of findings in this area. There is concern among some scholars that media researchers may have exaggerated effects (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Freedman, 2002; Pinker 2002; Savage, 2004). For example, a 2008 editorial in medical journal the Lancet concluded that discussions of media violence effects were exaggerted. There are many explanations of aggressive behavior which do not emphasize the role of the media. For example, some researchers have suggested that the pathway to aggression is largely biological/genetic (see the work of Hare, 1993, Larsson, Andershed, & Lichtenstein, in Press, among others), while others have suggested that aggression can be explained by principles of evolutionary psychology. Complaints about the possible deleterious effects of mass media are nothing new. Plato complained about the effects of plays on youth. Various media/genres, including dime novels, comic books, jazz, rock and roll, role playing/computer games and many others have attracted speculation that consumers of such media may become more aggressive, rebellious or immoral. This has led some scholars to conclude statements made by some researchers merely …
America: Freedom to Fascism (also America: From Freedom to Fascism or (per the title card) America: Freedom to Fascism Volume One) is a 2006 film by Aaron Russo. It was exhibited in theaters in select US cities.[1] This documentary covers many subjects, including: the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards (REAL ID Act), human-implanted RFID tags (Spychips), Diebold electronic voting machines,[2] globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse,[3] and the alleged use of terrorism by government as a means to diminish the citizens’ rights. Some of the premises of the film include: The Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional and has maxed out the national debt and bankrupted the United States government. Federal income taxes were imposed in response to, or as part of, the plan implementing the Federal Reserve System. Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid. The use of the Federal income tax to counter the economic effects of the Federal Reserve System is futile. The film’s claims about the illegality of the income tax in the United States have been critiqued as factually dubious by some reviewers.[4] The film has, however, developed a cult following
