Re: OT: HR1955 YOU NEED TO READ THIS

[Guest guest]

How about this example of their antivaccine people are violent...Just look what was printed in the New York Post article"The pendulum has swung so far to panic that to argue in favor of vaccines is to invite public scorn. For instance, Offit, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, received hate mail and death threats when he had the courage and misfortune of stating that neither a measles-mumps-rubella vaccine nor thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative used in the shot) were ever a risk to children."This is what I wonder about, will they spin it that we are extremists and violent and use what's in this bill to shut us up.>> Well, if we're entertaining dark thoughts as an exercise...> > I think the bill raises the potential for "agitprop" (agitation > propaganda) for autism/safer-vax rallies. The old-fashioned approach > would be people pretending to be enviro parents who were planted at a > rally for the specific purpose of raising a ruckus and painting the > demonstrators as "violent" by association in the press, thus > manufacturing public approval to handle the enviro movement as > potential "homegrown terrorists". The cyber-age way of doing this > would be for online agitprop-ers to start writing in threats to > various government institutions and making them appear to arise from > the enviro movement and appear to be associated with a planned > demonstration. > > I wonder if it's a concern for the upcoming D.C. rally, since it was > such a tried and true movement-buster in the sixties and seventies. > For the past twenty years, this wasn't necessary when it came to the > autism/safer vax movement because press censure was much easier to > arrange: the TV cameras just wouldn't show up in force. But I'm not > sure if that will be so easy to accomplish this time around. The > CDC's pretense that a threat is posed by the "Green Vax" rally was > why it was moved to D.C., right?

[Guest guest]

Okay, where's the criminal investigation into who supposedly sent the

death threats to Offit and the CDC? Where's the case leading?

Have they indicted anyone? Has anyone seen printed versions of these

threats to Offit? I'm not saying they didn't happen. I'm not even

saying vaccines haven't sickened a kid on some survivalist compound

and stirred up a hive-- not that this has ANYTHING to do with us, but

it could happen. Still, I do have to wonder about the veracity of

these " threats " because it's in the basic mental makeup of

perpetrators to invent them.

I have a hypothetical scenario in mind. While every parent of an

injured child goes around saying " Pardon my pity party " -- as they

write about valid and horrid realities that they and their children

are having to face, and " I don't want to sound like a whiner " , etc.,

Offit, the CDC and the rest are throwing a pity Mardi Gras for

themselves.

Imagine that I'm Offit (eew). I've staked my reputation on

defending vaccines and am making scads for doing it. I know they're

not safe, I know that I myself have done irreparable harm to

countless children and families with the PR work I've done, not to

mention my lethal patent. I have blood to my armpits. And I'm afraid

someone might find out, so I defend louder. In my heart of hearts, I

start to feel like a victim, see, because I'm defending the greater

good and, as they say, to make an omelette you've got to crack a few

and there are these loud advocates who threaten to expose me. I

imagine them hiding behind doorways and under sewer grates because,

if anyone damaged my child, that's what I'd think about doing.

But there's no proof that I'm actually being followed, pursued,

whatever. Instead it's all just paranoid displacement for the real

looming threat of indictment. Some government people (sshhhh) have a

conference with me on how to spin my case, butter me up that, well, I

probably *AM* under threat, see, because I'm a defender of public

good and, um, I need to expose these dangerous scourges to public

health!

And then some emails mysteriously appear in the university's inbox,

just a little close to my spin meeting. Oops, right in time for an

article to appear exposing the scourges!

I worked for four years as a victim's advocate and I can honestly say

that the only people who EVER " act like victims " in the true sense

are perpetrators. They transfer their own aggressive, illicit intent,

dishonesty and crazyness to their victims in order to retroactively

and proactively justify aggression, paint themselves as " victims of

their victims " .

>

> How about this example of their antivaccine people are violent...

> Just look what was printed in the New York Post article

>

> " The pendulum has swung so far to panic that to argue in favor of

> vaccines is to invite public scorn. For instance, Offit, chief of

the

> division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of

> Philadelphia, received hate mail and death threats when he had the

> courage and misfortune of stating that neither a measles-mumps-

rubella

> vaccine nor thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative used in the

shot)

> were ever a risk to children. "

>

> This is what I wonder about, will they spin it that we are

extremists

> and violent and use what's in this bill to shut us up.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Excellent points. Also, you and I know that there were probably

plenty of people writing to him stating the more obvious, " you are

an evil and despicable man " or " I hope you burn in eternal hell "

or " people like you will get yours someday, on a far different level

than what you have done to our children " (again, wrath of God,

eternal burning hell etc.) or " how do you sleep at night with what

you have done and continue to do to innocent children " ? This is

easily portrayed by Offitt as threats. On some level they are

threats, but asking how you sleep at night is not insinuating I am

personally coming to your house tonight to do you in, nor is saying

I hope you burn in eternal hell saying I will be the one sending you

there. But again easily passed off to the public " without showing

the actual email or recorded phone call " as threatening him.

Just how I always imagined it. Probably much more innocent than

being portrayed.

Kendra

> >

> > How about this example of their antivaccine people are violent...

> > Just look what was printed in the New York Post article

> >

> > " The pendulum has swung so far to panic that to argue in favor of

> > vaccines is to invite public scorn. For instance, Offit, chief

of

> the

> > division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of

> > Philadelphia, received hate mail and death threats when he had

the

> > courage and misfortune of stating that neither a measles-mumps-

> rubella

> > vaccine nor thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative used in the

> shot)

> > were ever a risk to children. "

> >

> > This is what I wonder about, will they spin it that we are

> extremists

> > and violent and use what's in this bill to shut us up.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

You got it girl! It's all about the timing.

This kind of reminds me of that youtube video awhile back with TX Rep Barton. Remember Imus aired it? The parents taped walking into his office & demanded to know why they were not invited to attend an important autism meeting. Ofcourse it was hand selected attendees. Anyways, that nasty lady working there told them that (paraphrase) "...Parents of ASD kids were threating and scary people" It is so scary how those who speak up against the gov are always criminalized. Remember when the constitution meant something?

Subject: Re: OT: HR1955 YOU NEED TO READ THISTo: EOHarm Date: Sunday, April 20, 2008, 9:35 PM

Okay, where's the criminal investigation into who supposedly sent the death threats to Offit and the CDC? Where's the case leading? Have they indicted anyone? Has anyone seen printed versions of these threats to Offit? I'm not saying they didn't happen. I'm not even saying vaccines haven't sickened a kid on some survivalist compound and stirred up a hive-- not that this has ANYTHING to do with us, but it could happen. Still, I do have to wonder about the veracity of these "threats" because it's in the basic mental makeup of perpetrators to invent them. I have a hypothetical scenario in mind. While every parent of an injured child goes around saying "Pardon my pity party"-- as they write about valid and horrid realities that they and their children are having to face, and "I don't want to sound like a whiner", etc., Offit, the CDC and the rest are throwing a pity Mardi Gras for

themselves.Imagine that I'm Offit (eew). I've staked my reputation on defending vaccines and am making scads for doing it. I know they're not safe, I know that I myself have done irreparable harm to countless children and families with the PR work I've done, not to mention my lethal patent. I have blood to my armpits. And I'm afraid someone might find out, so I defend louder. In my heart of hearts, I start to feel like a victim, see, because I'm defending the greater good and, as they say, to make an omelette you've got to crack a few and there are these loud advocates who threaten to expose me. I imagine them hiding behind doorways and under sewer grates because, if anyone damaged my child, that's what I'd think about doing.But there's no proof that I'm actually being followed, pursued, whatever. Instead it's all just paranoid displacement for the real looming threat of

indictment. Some government people (sshhhh) have a conference with me on how to spin my case, butter me up that, well, I probably *AM* under threat, see, because I'm a defender of public good and, um, I need to expose these dangerous scourges to public health! And then some emails mysteriously appear in the university's inbox, just a little close to my spin meeting. Oops, right in time for an article to appear exposing the scourges! I worked for four years as a victim's advocate and I can honestly say that the only people who EVER "act like victims" in the true sense are perpetrators. They transfer their own aggressive, illicit intent, dishonesty and crazyness to their victims in order to retroactively and proactively justify aggression, paint themselves as "victims of their victims". >> How about this example of their antivaccine people are violent...> Just look what was printed in the New York Post article> > "The pendulum has swung so far to panic that to argue in favor of> vaccines is to invite public scorn. For instance, Offit, chief of the> division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of> Philadelphia, received hate mail and death threats when he had the> courage and misfortune of stating that neither a measles-mumps-rubella> vaccine nor thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative used in the shot)> were ever a risk to children."> > This is what I wonder about, will they spin it that we are extremists> and violent and use what's in this bill to shut us up.> > > >

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Guest guest]

This is a very scary piece of legislation that can be used against any dissenter or person who in any way associates with dissenters. One need not be violent but only engage in an undefined "use of force." One need not use it but need only "plan" or "threaten" to use it - that is regulating speech and thought. Whether one is advocating for social change or "intimidate[ing] or coerce[ing] the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" is all a question of which side of the political or social issue you are on.

Extremely dangerous stuff this. The fact that this passed through the House without a whimper speaks volumes about political cowardice and the willingness of legislators to terrorize political activists into silence. I don't think this is OT at all since so much of what vaccine activists do is openly, dare I say forcefully, critical of the U.S. government.

Jake Marcus

[Guest guest]

That's why I posted it. I have a feeling that they are just holding

off until this gets passed. Then they will come at us with it,

accusing us of jeopardizing public health (they are saying we are

responsible for the measles outbreaks), and threatening violence (as

Offit is now stating).

These latest tactics make me very suspicious.

>

> This is a very scary piece of legislation that can be used against

any dissenter or person who in any way associates with dissenters.

One need not be violent but only engage in an undefined " use of

force. " One need not use it but need only " plan " or " threaten " to use

it - that is regulating speech and thought. Whether one is advocating

for social change or " intimidate[ing] or coerce[ing] the United States

government, the civilian population of the United States, or any

segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives " is

all a question of which side of the political or social issue you are on.

>

> Extremely dangerous stuff this. The fact that this passed through

the House without a whimper speaks volumes about political cowardice

and the willingness of legislators to terrorize political activists

into silence. I don't think this is OT at all since so much of what

vaccine activists do is openly, dare I say forcefully, critical of the

U.S. government.

>

> Jake Marcus

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, if they knew the threats would lead back to a computer at, say,

the home of someone in a government agency merely following orders to

manufacture evidence of insurrection-- or if the threats weren't

really threats but just, as you put it, " unpleasant " (like " You

belong in jail, Mr. Offit " )-- then the fact that there's spin but no

follow-up makes perfect sense.

The bottom line is that these people are paranoid for a reason. There

are those within pharma and within the CDC who know perfectly well

that the products have created a holocaust. Being inordinately

aggressive, ruthless people themselves, they project their own

violence onto the movement, imagining what *they'd* do if someone

wrecked *their* children. They know they deserve to be in jail, so

extrapolating this truth into violent intent from the other side is

meant to obscure.

Those behind the cognitive disaster are probably SO disappointed that

the movement has gone " Ghandi " and " MLK " on them and isn't providing

the fodder they (those behind the vaccine injury epidemic) need to

paint themselves as " victims of their victims " . This is what makes me

suspect that a bunch of measles outbreaks occurring right after

McCarthy was on Larry King or some of the other high profile movement

events is a bit odd. It's certainly the kind of fodder of the

movement's " dangerousness " that those responsible for the autism

epidemic would long for.

Something else I learned from victim advocacy: the criminals always

extrapolate victim's actions or words as " violent " and attempt to

frame. For example, if a guy beats his wife to death, he'll

characterize her as having had her " foot on his neck " over finances

or that she was " constantly bashing him over the head " with

complaints about his drinking. Altering the character of the victim

as " crazy/violent/provacative/cruel " , mischaracterizing the victim's

nonviolent protest or words as directly violent-- not to mention

direct framing-- are part of a universal mechanism of perpetrators

called " reduction of self punishment " .

So therefore, people in the movement are in a " fervor " to find

someone to " blame " (altering character) and we " put public health at

risk " and " you belong in jail " is characterized as a violent

threat.

Now that they've shown themselves as capable of inventing threat

where none existed, all they needed was a law on the books to nail

people in peaceful movements for civil protest. For this, one of

Bush's signing statements comes in handy: the president currently has

the power to incarcerate an American citizen without trial, without

official charges or explanations. This also passed without a wimper.

> >

> > Okay, where's the criminal investigation into who supposedly sent

> the

> > death threats to Offit and the CDC? Where's the case

leading?

> > Have they indicted anyone? Has anyone seen printed versions of

> these

> > threats to Offit?

[Guest guest]

Maybe the mom's need to bake Offit some cookies and send him

birthday and christmas cards. Could work with the politicians too.

LOL!!!!

[Guest guest]

This is a very dangerous law. My DH has been in law enforcement for

24 yrs & he read thru this/ He says, " It's BS, too vague & very

troubling "

So if I become a " myspace " friend of any group the gov't considers 'a

threat " (I'm big into animal rescue, rights, etc), I could be in

trouble.

So if they deem anti vaxers " a threat " - WTH?

Yes, we are critical of the gov't & worse - big pharma

dd

>

> This is a very scary piece of legislation that can be used against

any dissenter or person who in any way associates with dissenters.

One need not be violent but only engage in an undefined " use of

force. " One need not use it but need only " plan " or " threaten " to

use it - that is regulating speech and thought. Whether one is

advocating for social change or " intimidate[ing] or coerce[ing] the

United States government, the civilian population of the United

States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social

objectives " is all a question of which side of the political or

social issue you are on.

>

> Extremely dangerous stuff this. The fact that this passed through

the House without a whimper speaks volumes about political cowardice

and the willingness of legislators to terrorize political activists

into silence. I don't think this is OT at all since so much of what

vaccine activists do is openly, dare I say forcefully, critical of

the U.S. government.

>

> Jake Marcus

>

[Guest guest]

Did your DH know about this before he read it here? I'm finding that

hardly anyone knows about this! We should be sharing this info with

everyone. As it could impact our movement.

> >

> > This is a very scary piece of legislation that can be used against

> any dissenter or person who in any way associates with dissenters.

> One need not be violent but only engage in an undefined " use of

> force. " One need not use it but need only " plan " or " threaten " to

> use it - that is regulating speech and thought. Whether one is

> advocating for social change or " intimidate[ing] or coerce[ing] the

> United States government, the civilian population of the United

> States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social

> objectives " is all a question of which side of the political or

> social issue you are on.

> >

> > Extremely dangerous stuff this. The fact that this passed through

> the House without a whimper speaks volumes about political cowardice

> and the willingness of legislators to terrorize political activists

> into silence. I don't think this is OT at all since so much of what

> vaccine activists do is openly, dare I say forcefully, critical of

> the U.S. government.

> >

> > Jake Marcus

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The thing is when the average person hears about this they don't think

how it infringes on their rights. They simplify it with thinking that

it will prevent an al quiada type groups from forming in the us. Most

look at it as making america safer. Where it's really only making

government safer from americans.

[Guest guest]

I agree with whoever said that we cannot secure freedom abroad by abandoning it

at

home.

And then there's this quote:

" Security is mostly superstition, it does not exist in nature, nor do the

children of men as a

whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright

exposure.

Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. " --- Helen Keller

>

> The thing is when the average person hears about this they don't think

> how it infringes on their rights. They simplify it with thinking that

> it will prevent an al quiada type groups from forming in the us. Most

> look at it as making america safer. Where it's really only making

> government safer from americans.

>

[Guest guest]

NO... that's what so troubling. We are a few hrs driving distance to

the Flt 93 crash site. He was an early responder on that fateful day.

These " laws " take a long time to trickle down to the

state/county/local level.

This is an example of law that Cops especially HATE.

Sadly, we could all be infriginged upon - even the Cops - under this

law.

Very scary, I hope it does not pass thru the process

dd

> > >

> > > This is a very scary piece of legislation that can be used

against

> > any dissenter or person who in any way associates with

dissenters.

> > One need not be violent but only engage in an undefined " use of

> > force. " One need not use it but need only " plan " or " threaten "

to

> > use it - that is regulating speech and thought. Whether one is

> > advocating for social change or " intimidate[ing] or coerce[ing]

the

> > United States government, the civilian population of the United

> > States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or

social

> > objectives " is all a question of which side of the political or

> > social issue you are on.

> > >

> > > Extremely dangerous stuff this. The fact that this passed

through

> > the House without a whimper speaks volumes about political

cowardice

> > and the willingness of legislators to terrorize political

activists

> > into silence. I don't think this is OT at all since so much of

what

> > vaccine activists do is openly, dare I say forcefully, critical

of

> > the U.S. government.

> > >

> > > Jake Marcus

> > >

> >

>