The Ruthless Truth blog

I really would like to paint a rosy picture here but I cannot.

The sheer amount of laws slipping under our noses to enforce the fact that in our absence to prevail as a unified belligerent claimant over our sovereign rights is a tsunami against freedoms as depicted in our founding documents that makes the movie 2012 look pale and quite relieving by comparison.

Gauging where we stand is as easy as monitoring anti freedom of speech areas like the capital areas in DC or in washington state as well as many other areas. Its as easy as trying to choke down the evening news and knowing your hands are tied, for all intents and purposes they are.

Any UN  membership comes at what seems like a benign cost of being labeled a nation state or as most UN sites call a member state; and to the unlearned eye it seems odd they arent called nations but one automatically surmises that it must just be how the terminology in the UN works.

Heres a pin to that bubble, its not incidental they call nations states; in fact the failure of the league of nations underlines this greatly. There is ample purpose and design behind the terminology and its called the success of the world bank as the leader in making world reserve notes for the states of the world.

Gauging how far gone we are is as simple as reading from un websites; According to the UN and the parent holding company the world bank , nations dont exist. In order to partake in the UN charters and World bank schemes they cant exist.

The larger question is wether or not it can be fixed and what is defined as a fix.

The elite are certain that they are preparing for the possibility of another extinction level event and have done everything they have done to prepare for it and its taken several thousand years to get there.

Obviously we need some unity but do we need them? well the answer is obvious; we dont need them as they have systematically removed bits of history to the point where all we want to believe of it is that we just started making spears about 100k years ago and that was all we needed to know.

never mind that Ooparts exist to tell a different tale and histories that survived their cleansing add to it.

The fact is you are as gone as you want to be, and in your absence more laws will be passed , more crisis created and more dead children piling up on the sleeping hands of a world and its nations people who should have done more than believe the lies of the agents of mans demise.

If the masses do nothing at the precipice of the ineligible Obama tipping this country past the brink of no return, it is on them to face the generations that come after to ask why and condemn. Its on you; I have done my part my whole life and bear none of the guilt for believing the lies. I never did,.

If you were men and not mice , youd get together with statesmen and form an immovable object called we the people and tell the bankers to cover their fraudulent debt on their own, we owe them nothing and will pay nothing  . And furthermore we will take what is theirs and make it  a thing that heals nations.

but were not all men here are we? Were cowards behind schemes we refuse to analyze because it makes us look safe in our peers eyes.

We are at the precipice, Obama is not the right man for the job and we all need some healing. As far as I can see today well be in the clutches of the elite UN scheme for the rest of our lives.I dont have enough faith in mankind getting past his lies to save himself but maybe it is I that am naive.

I guess well see. The crash of the 20’s did nothing nor did the crash in the late 1800’s; we are still in their grasp. And to be honest I dont think the masses are that smart to route this real problem; they have the potential but its not used; there are no clear leaders and no decisive manifestos that lack what is similar to the zeal of extremism.

This extreme partisanship is the great indicator, its my prophet that says you wont do what needs to be done in time to save anything. In the end youll be shooting each other and conducting heinous crimes against humanity because youre ignorant and self worshipping.

I suppose you could PROVE me wrong but I doubt you will. I doubt that youll realize what I have .

the atomic nature of existence makes us all equal.

The earths and our own measurable magnetic fields work in unison

war is the substitution of nature taking what is hers, as is genocide

being equals means we are all accountable for what we create and creating our space inside anothers paradigm makes us equally as guilty

At any time you can awake and wake up others and undo it all together; we are smart enough and we can do it.

The information of the entire cosmos and beyond is in your very atomic being

we are the manifested being of god

so why dont we act like it?

How close to being slaves are we? how close do you want to be? 

The Ruthless Truth blog

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Freedom of speech is an oxymoron unless nothing is barred from being said. IF you cant say something, you dont have freedom of speech

speaking your mind threatens your first amendment rights

But thats ok right? i mean its not like any american is going to actually DO anything to change that, And chances are if anyone does anything it will jeopardize everyone trying to do ,,,,something.

Forget the fact that so many Americans forefathers bled for the right to speak every word that lay in his mind. Forget the fact that these rights are contractually unalienable if you as I , consider the declaration of independance a contractual addendum to the bill of rights which gives meanings to terms found in said bill. I call it the contractual definitions page of the constitution.

You might call it an antiquated notion that should be replaced by UN charters and globalist ideals. And thats fine if you are an idiot that does, you are simply living in the wrong country and need to get the fuck OUT !!! ooops!! there I go abusing language . Guess we need to eliminate my first amendment right before I say shit or fag or something worse like kike or wop.

Words are sounds produced by forcing air through the trachea and vibrating the vocal chords as the air passes; Once said there is silence, the completion of a thought spoken isnt a tangible force or item Unless those words are used to create something tangible.

People  give words more sway than they deserve, as action is always more substantive, and to be honest , by way of comparison words are nothing, Most people utter only lies and not because they intend to but that they dont know the actual truth , as most people try relaying the truth but curiously those trying to limit the ability to speak freely also do everything possible to limit the availability of truth.

For the most part people are unenlightened reactionaries who wouldnt have a clue or couldnt have a clue on problem solving due to the fact that truth is so sparse any attempt to solve problems only creates more.

heres a real solution, befriend your elected reps, and i mean all of you procrastinating bastards and bitches ( damnit there I go again) why is that a solution? the best way to defeat a foe is to make him a friend. Why the harsh language? because you dont have your head outr of your self sympathizing ass enough to save yourself or anyone else from the loss of freedom and it takes some insult to make your damn monkey brain move.

Sorry but thats the ruthless truth. call me an asshole and a son of a bitch, shit ; use all your words but for once in your fucking sleepy ass life use some fucking words to get shit done.

Verndewd

By James J. Zogby

The last US administration displayed a rather perverse and dangerous penchant for dressing up its behaviour, providing it with religious or patriotic intent.

President George Bush packaged the Iraq war, for example, as America’s mission – having been charged by God to bring the gift of freedom to the world. The "war on terror" was presented through the lens of World War II and the cold war, and transformed into a battle of cosmic proportions against those who "hate our freedom" and "our way of life". US troops who were sent into battle in Iraq were seen as "defending our freedom" or "making America safe".

One could, of course, argue with this crass manipulation of potent symbols, though, at the time, few did. Politicians were especially hesitant to criticise this hyper-inflated rhetoric, not wanting to appear insensitive to the public’s fear or disrespectful of the sacrifices of those who had died or been maimed in the Iraq war.

Left unchallenged, this abuse of language continued to grow and become accepted in some quarters, doing damage to our political discourse and distorting our sense of reality.

Speaking to the National Tea Party Convention last month, for example, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin rebuked the Obama administration for treating a would-be terrorist as a criminal defendant and providing him the opportunity to "invoke our Constitutional right…".

She went on: "Our US Constitutional rights. Our rights that you fought and were willing to die for to protect in our Constitution. The rights that my son, as an infantryman in the United States Army, is willing to die for. The protections provided, thanks to you, we are going to bestow them on a terrorist who hates our Constitution and tries to destroy our Constitution and our country."

While Palin is wrong on so many levels, her comments, reflecting the degree to which the national discussion has become distorted and out of touch with reality, must be rebutted.

First of all, it is just plain silly to bestow upon a pathetic failed would-be airplane bomber the capacity or even the intention to "destroy our Constitution and our country".

I have no doubt of his evil motives or of the hatred in his heart, but making him or those who sent him larger than they are serves no useful purpose.

Second, as painful as it may be to look at reality, head on we must. After seven years of the Iraq war and nine years of Afghanistan, it must be clear that these were not wars to defend "our Constitution".

One of these wars was designed to depose and punish those who cruelly attacked us on September 11 murdering 3,000 innocents. The other was based on a series of fabricated motives, none of which playing a role in making America safer or defending the constitution.

And while we’re on the subject of the constitution, it is important to take Palin to task for embracing what has become a popular misconception, and this is that the rights detailed in the constitution are "ours" alone.

Leaving aside former president Bush’s disturbing claim that America was charged by the Almighty to bring the "gift of freedom" to the world, US courts have continually affirmed that the rights described in the constitution apply to all "persons" who reside in the United States, not just citizens. Not only that, but US courts have also determined that the constitutional rights of habeas corpus and due process, and protections against "cruel and unusual punishment" and self-incrimination also apply to prisoners in US custody in Guantanamo or even some of those detained at Baghram in Afghanistan.

It is vitally important to pierce through the cloud of obfuscation and inflated rhetoric of the past decade and to advance a clearer understanding of who we are as a people and the exact nature of our role in the world. The reality we will discover is neither Bush’s divinely ordained America with its saving mission nor Palin’s more narrowly defined chauvinism.

It will require that we undergo a painful process of self-examination demanding full transparency and full accountability for past behaviour.

As difficult as it may be to acknowledge it, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that innocent lives were lost in an unnecessary war and America’s reputation was sullied by horrific and illegal acts committed in our name.

Finally, it is important that Americans study our history and our foundational documents.

It is shocking to note how few know the Bill of Rights. Even more disturbing is to note, as F. Lee Bailey, one of our nation’s great defence attorneys, once did, that if the language of the constitution and the Bill of Rights were reintroduced today, they would be seen as "unpatriotic" and would in all likelihood not receive public support and would not pass Congress.

In the end, the damage done by this abuse of language goes beyond a wasteful war and confusion in our national discussion of critical issues. By inflaming passions in support of unconstitutional behaviour, this rhetoric puts at risk the very freedoms it claims to be defending.

Abuse of language threatens American freedoms | Jordan Times

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Michael Boldin

The following is based off a speech I gave at the first annual Tenth Amendment Summit in Atlanta, GA on February 26, 2010.

How can a “crazy” Californian and a “conservative” Georgian be friends? It’s simple – through the principles of ’98. In 1798, the John Adams administration signed into law that Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government or its officials. In practice, it was used to quell the freedom of speech in dissent against the sitting administration.

In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, Thomas Jefferson responded:

“the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government”

But wait – that’s not all. He went on to say that all undelegated powers exercised by the federal government are “unathoritative, void and of no force.” And, that a “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”

NULLIFICATION?

There’s been plenty of people talking about nullification lately, but many people don’t know what it really means. I can think of no better way to define it than how my friend Derek Sheriff from the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center has done:

Nullification is not secession or insurrection, but neither is it unconditional or unlimited submission. Nullification is not something that requires any decision, statement or action from any branch of the federal government. Nullification is not the result of obtaining a favorable court ruling. Nullification is not the petitioning of the federal government to start doing or to stop doing anything. Nullification doesn’t depend on any federal law being repealed. Nullification does not require permission from any person or institution outside of one’s own state.

Nullification is something that’s already happening around the country – and Derek explains the process:

Nullification begins with a decision made in your state legislature to resist a federal law deemed to be unconstitutional. It usually involves a bill, which is passed by both houses and is signed by your governor. In some cases, it might be approved by the voters of your state directly, in a referendum. It may change your state’s statutory law or it might even amend your state constitution. It is a refusal on the part of your state government to cooperate with, or enforce any federal law it deems to be unconstitutional.

At its very core, nullification is mass civil-disobedience to the federal government with the support of the state apparatus. It’s about “We the People” exercising our rights whether the politicians or judges in Washington D.C want to give us “permission” to exercise those rights or not.

ROSCOE FILBURN

During the Great Depression, while millions of people were out of work or starving, the FDR administration required American farmers to restrict production of wheat in order to raise prices.

As a farmer, Roscoe Filburn was told he could plant a little over 10 acres of wheat, which he did grow and sell on the market. He also decided that it was in his best interest – possibly because he had less revenue due to the production limitations – to plant another 10 or so acres. But, the “excess” wheat grown was used at home to feed his livestock, among other things. He never sold it, so he saw this as being outside the scope of Congressional power to regulate “interstate commerce.”

What did the federal government do? The expected – they ordered Roscoe to destroy his crops and pay a fine. Think about that for a moment and you’ll really understand the evil of having too much power in too few hands. At a time when large numbers of people were starving, these thugs in government forced people to reduce production for the sake of raising prices. From this, it seems clear to me that corporate bailouts have been going on a long, long time in America.

Roscoe sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In Wickard v Filburn, the Court ruled against him and the result was that the Federal Government assumed a power that was new in the history of this country. It now had the power to control the growing and consuming of something that never left one’s back yard.

LOST LIBERTY

John Adams, who as we can see from his signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts-, was no saint, did give us a great warning on the growth of government power. In 1775 he wrote, “liberty once lost, is lost forever.” He went on to explain that when the People allow government to gain power and restrict liberty, it will never voluntarily give that power back. Liberty given up to government power will never be returned to the people without a long and difficult struggle.

If we fast forward to present times, we can see this principle at work.

ANGEL RAICH

In the 1990s, the People of California voted to legalize consumption of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Angel Raich, who has a huge cancerous tumor in her brain was told by her doctor and California law that using marijuana to relieve some of the pain associated with her cancer was acceptable.

The Feds don’t take too kindly to states passing laws in direct contravention to theirs. Marijuana, for example, is illegal on a federal level in all circumstances, and federal agencies have consistently said they don’t recognize state laws. You can probably guess what happened, right?

Federal agents destroyed Angel’s homegrown marijuana plants without much resistance. Like Roscoe before her, Angel sued, and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2005, the Supreme Court once again ruled that growing and consuming a plant in one’s own back yard qualified as “interstate commerce.” And, because of that, the federal government was then authorized to control, regulate, or outright ban such activities under the threat of fine or prison.

Clarence Thomas, in his famous dissent, got it right when he wrote, “If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined”, while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.”

PARTISAN CONSTITUTIONALISTS?

The main problem we face is that much of the support for the 10th Amendment is little more than partisanship. For many years, conservatives have rightly railed against policies such as the ones that FDR used against Roscoe Filburn. But, at the same time, they’ve turned a blind eye to those same policies when used against Angel Raich and her use of marijuana. And on the other hand, liberals have done just the opposite.

The bottom line, though, is this. When you allow politicians to bend the rules of the Constitution – even for things you may support – over a long period of time, sooner or later you’re going to end up with politicians who feel that the rules don’t apply at all. And, if we’re not there right now, we’re pretty darn close.

EVERY ISSUE, EVERY TIME

That’s why we at the Tenth Amendment Center demand adherence to the Constitution – Every Issue. Every time. No exceptions. No excuses. That means that much of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, including:

The Department of Education, The Patriot Act, Federal Gun Laws and Regulations, National Health Care Mandates, and something that’s been going on since 1941, wars without a Congressional declaration of war from Congress.

LIBERTY

From this we can see that the Tenth Amendment is not about political parties. It’s not about political ideologies. It’s not even about political candidates. It’s about liberty. It was designed to promote your liberty by strictly limiting the powers of the federal government.

Over the past year or so, I’ve been interviewed by mainstream media sources literally dozens of times. And whether it’s Fox News, or CNN, or the New York Times, the reporters invariably ask the same question, “What political party do you support?” Each time, I give them the same answer, “The Tenth Amendment Center is a non-partisan think tank that supports the principles of strictly limited constitutional government.”

They always have virtually the same follow up question too – “what about you? As the founder of the Center, what’s your political background, what political party do you support?”

“None,” I tell them. I don’t know if they believe me, but it’s true.

I’m no conservative, and I’m no liberal. I’m not a Democrat or a Republican. And I’m not a green or a libertarian, or a socialist or an anarchist. I’m not even an independent.

All I am is me, and all I want is to live free.

Thank you….

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center

Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

http://digg.com/d31KHiN?t

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Posted: February 12, 2010
12:50 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Bloggers have been having fun in recent days with a state law in South Carolina that requires "subversives" to register with the state or face a possible fine of $25,000 and a jail term of 10 years.

"Is it really any wonder that the Palmetto State perpetually ranks first in everything bad and last in everything good? Or that half of our citizens can’t walk and chew gum simultaneously?" jested FitsNews.com about the state’s "Subversive Activities Registration Act."

Another noted the act states anyone who advocates overthrowing the government of the U.S. "shall register with the secretary of state."

But state officials told WND the law, which has been on the books since 1952, allows specifically for freedom of speech to criticize the government and could be used today to enhance the prosecution of anyone suspected of terror-related crimes.

(Story continues below)

The law is fairly brief, citing penalties of up to $25,000 in fines and/or 10 years in jail for failing to comply with the requirement that "every subversive organization and organization subject to foreign control shall register with the secretary of state on forms prescribed by him within 30 days after coming into existence in this state."

The law defines "subversives" as "every corporation, society, association, camp, group, bund, political party, assembly, body or organization, composed of two or more persons, which directly or indirectly advocates, advises, teaches or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, of this state or of any political subdivision thereof by force or violence or other unlawful means."

Some bloggers argue the law seems to conflict with the Declaration of Independence’ statement that it is the right of citizens to overthrow a government that has become corrupt and abusive.

The one and only document registration under South Carolina’s "Subversives Act"

Gene McCaskill, the senior executive assistant in the state attorney general’s office, told WND the law was adopted at the height of the "Red Scare," the public concern in the 1950s over the advance of communism. It may have been enacted to address concerns about communists infiltrating the United States, he said.

McCaskill said the law as it was written is very much a valid statute in today’s war on terror that could be used to prosecute anyone suspected of terror-related acts.

"If someone were charged with an act of terrorism, he also could be charged under this law," he said.

The law provides an enhancement to the potential penalty for a conviction, much in the same way some states adopt "drug stamp tax" laws that require drug dealers to purchase permits to operate and pay taxes on their income.

While no one really expects a drug dealer to comply, it becomes an additional hammer for prosecutors when dealers are arrested.

McCaskill also said the act itself protects freedom of speech for critics of government.

The law itself states, "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize, require or establish censorship or to limit in any way or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect."

South Carolina Secretary of State Mark Hammond told WND that in his research on the law, he found only one instance in which a filing was submitted to his office, and that happened just days ago.

"I think that a lot of people are having fun with this," he told WND. "I think a lot of people felt like this was a new piece of legislation, to have fun, to try to raise questions."

The only filing on record under the state’s "Subversive Agent Form" is from Steve Kempf, who gives an address in Grove City, Ohio.

He checked the "yes" box when asked, "Do you or your organization directly or indirectly advocate, advise, teach or practice the duty or necessity of controlling, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States, the state of South Carolina or any political division thereof?"

"I believe the United States is headed for Theocracy. In order to circumvent this, I have proposed counter-measures. These include, but are not limited to: Kicking republicans (sic) present, laughing during speeches made by such fools (sic)," the application states.

Hammond said it came with a $5 payment for the registration, as required by law. The registration was stamped by the state Feb. 10.

The issue of government crackdowns on speech and ideology, however, is anything but a joking matter.

WND reported last year when a state agency in Missouri identified individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes, as potential terrorists.

Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the report caused him to review the procedures through which it was released.

He said the report’s warning about those who hold Christian views was created by a Missouri Information Analysis Center employee, reviewed by the agency’s director and sent immediately to law enforcement agencies across Missouri.

"The militia report was never reviewed by me or by the director of public safety, John Britt, at any point prior to its issuance," Keathley said. "Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies."

Keathley said the report "does not meet" the needed standard for "intelligence." So he ordered its distribution to be halted.

But his warning prompted Americans for Legal Immigration to issue a "national advisory" against relying on any such reports.

Learn how to foil those who would damage the nation. Get "Taking America Back" now from the WND Superstore.

The Missouri document, the group said, "attempted to politicize police and cast suspicion on millions of Americans. The ‘Missouri Documents,’ as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets."

"Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The ‘Missouri Documents’ also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!" ALIPAC wrote.

"When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by the SPLC and ADL," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over the top political propaganda distributed by these groups."

The Missouri controversy was just the tip of the iceberg, however. WND reported only weeks later when a Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, stated that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, went on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

The report from DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Most notable was the report’s focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it said. "DHS is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

State to ’subversives’: Register or go to jail

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

South Australia’s Attorney-General Michael Atkinson admits he misjudged public opinion on the state’s attempt to curb political comment on the internet.

Mr Atkinson says he will repeal a law which would have meant that anyone posting comment or blogs during an election period would have had to give their real name and postcode.

Opponents had branded the law an attack on freedom of speech, and Mr Atkinson says he listened to community concerns in his decision to overturn it.

"I now understand that bloggers demand the right to publish, on the net, political commentary in the election period anonymously or under an assumed name," he said.

"I miscalculated the strength of feeling among teenagers and people in their 20s who have grown up with the internet and blogging and I underestimated their desire to have as a right the ability to make political commentary in the election period anonymously or under an assumed name.

"When one gets public opinion wrong, as I did, one has to change one’s mind."

Free speech win

Civil libertarians say the Attorney-General’s back flip is a win for free speech.

George Mancini of the SA Council for Civil Liberties says public outcry made the Government think twice.

"Nice little victory for democracy and freedom of speech in South Australia so that people don’t need to be feared (sic) about speaking out and they can maintain their privacy," he said.

The state Opposition says Mr Atkinson should resign or be sacked.

The legislation was supported by the Opposition Liberal Party but shadow attorney-general Vickie Chapman now says the party was misled.

"He clearly wanted to use this legislation to hunt down any of those who criticised him or the Government and that was made absolutely clear yesterday by his statements and behaviour," she said.

"And indeed even the information and assurances were given by the Electoral Commissioner, [and] we consider she has been misled."

Ms Chapman says Mr Atkinson has become a liability to the Government.

Mr Atkinson promised to repeal the legislation retrospectively after the SA election on March 20.

But he later promised to act sooner to exempt internet sites from the new law.

"I will say Vickie Chapman has had an excellent idea on using the regulatory powers to exempt and that’s just what we’ll be doing as soon as possible, so congratulations to the Liberal Opposition spokeswoman for seeing a way through this problem," he said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm

Bookmark It

Hide Sites