Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Today Is Critical, And We Must Join-in To Kill S 1959
justanothercoverup.com — the Internet is buzzing about the upcoming passage of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, yet through all of the talk and articles, we still haven ’t joined-in with enough numbers to stop this Bill dead in its tracks - and if we don’t, as all of the author’s seem to agree, Free Speech in American could effectiv
wjcormier- 1668 diggs
- digg it
- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -10/+166For those who say they have read this act, and that it doesn't affect us, take a look at their definitions listed at the top of the act:
The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.
Do you see the words "force OR violence?". What is it that we try to accomplish when forming, or participating in a grassroots movement, a protest, an email, phone, or letter campaign?
We are trying to force a change in government action, ideology, or trying to force a change in thought of every day citizens who have the power to locally affect legislation being passed in their state, or local communities.
Congress found "The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security."
Meaning those threats of force OR violence pose a threat to Homeland Security.
Congress found "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
Meaning that restrictions will most certainly be imposed on the internet to immediately cease traffic to and from known sites commencing with "terrorist" ideologies. After that, and sites with a lot of traffic adhering to their definitions of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, or ideological based terrorism (by the ever changing definition of Homeland Security), will not only be monitored, but the users who post many comments hoping to inspire, motivate, and drive people to action will also be individually monitored, possibly banned from these sites, or otherwise restricted. These restrictions will likely be imposed in other ways of life as well. Look at the no fly lists, police databases, CCTV cameras, etc.
Congress found: "Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."
Unless of course, they amend the constitution to allow it. Or, they pass an act, such as this very act, or the patriot act, or the protect america act, that allows executive privilege in a vaguely defined "time of emergency", to disregard those rights in order to protect the homeland.
Congress found: "Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations."
CCTV cameras, Internet monitoring and censorship, media consolidation under government decree, face tracking, country/continent unification, excessive tasering, the development of surveillance material to be used in public places, and in gatherings of protest/dissent (small hovering microphones and cameras, the development of hovering taser devices).
I can go on and on, and if need be I will.
If you honestly think that this doesn't affect us, that our government couldn't possibly commit illegal acts of censorship, silencing, monitoring, and installing fear among their own citizens, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. The government has done all of these things before, and we didn't know about it until many years later when these acts were deemed irrelevant enough to be "declassified".
We have several covert federal agencies operating with our police system, our court system, the internet, phone companies, and will soon be within our medical records as well (RFID chips anyone?).
This is something that WILL affect us. This is something that we have to take care of. WE MUST RETALIATE.
Flood the offices of your congressional leaders with phone calls. Write a letter to them on your computer, save it, and print and send dozens of copies. It'll cost you what, five dollars in stamps?
Contact your media again and again and again. Discuss it with your family and friends.
The time for the passing of this legislation is near. We must act now. We have to act now.
We cannot let apathy get the best of us. We cannot let fatalism or defeatism get the best of us. You are not alone, you are among many. You will make a difference, because your voice will be among thousands. If we don't protect ourselves, our children, and our neighbors, what left will we have to life for? How will we be able to organize and fight for further infringements and atrocities if our rights to organize and dissent are slowly withering away?- BrapAllgood, on 12/03/2007, -5/+43I am standing for this clapping. Thank you.
- JonnyTrombone, on 12/03/2007, -44/+5First off, I don't think this will _effect_ us. Why? Because I don't plan on killing anyone for a political cause.
Second- the bill forms a committee to look into homegrown terrorism. A committee- that's all. And for the record here, "Homegrown Terrorists" are people that blow up abortion clinics (happens all the time) or call in bomb threats to schools. Not upset citizens bitching about politics.- signal15, on 12/03/2007, -6/+26You are an idiot.
- heinousjay, on 12/04/2007, -7/+2Jesus, have you read the article? Did a fifth grader kick off this movement? I'm sorry, my diggalicious friend, you and your ilk are the idiots.
- yodaj007, on 12/03/2007, -5/+10The verb is "affect", not "effect", which is the noun. Your correction only made you look like an idiot, as signal pointed out.
- Tippis, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Actually, "effect" can also be a verb (but, admittedly, with a rather different meaning)
- JonnyTrombone, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1'Effect' is properly used as a verb to refer to new ideas or happenings, affect is properly used to describe previously existing ones (something effects, something affected). Since the legislation isn't even up for debate yet, and is thus extremely new, it will not "effect" me. If it was already law, it does not affect me. (Also note: affect is also commonly used to describe an emotional effect, in line with the noun form of the word.)
- Ndiggnation, on 12/03/2007, -1/+12Wait until "bitching about politics" does equal being considered a Homgrown Terrorist, Herr JonnyTrombone.
People said the same kinds of things about the Patriot Act and all the domestic spying. Sure, you may not being doing anything wrong, but do you want to lose your privacy? I'm not doing anything wrong when I make love to my girlfriend in my own house, but I still don't want the government spying on me when I do it.. - Drahkar, on 12/03/2007, -2/+13Due to the vague wording of the resolution anyone would classify as one if they said anything negative about the government. Not to mention that we are charged by the constitution to take up arms against our government should it move against the people and their right to liberty and justice. This bill makes those people criminals instead of patriots.
- kev92486, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3"Not to mention that we are charged by the constitution to take up arms against our government should it move against the people and their right to liberty and justice"
This is something that many people fail to realize how important of a right it really is. I'm guessing that when that right finally does get taken away, the rights taken away following it will be the ones that we'd need to bear arms for. Here's to hoping it NEVER comes to something like that. It's our duty for those of us who are American to make sure it doesn't have to. - FreeStater, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2re: Kev92486
Not just our right but, "our duty". - Drahkar, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1One might go as far as to say if this resolution does pass, that this is exactly the type of thing our Founder Fathers were referring to when they put that into the constitution.
- kev92486, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3"Not to mention that we are charged by the constitution to take up arms against our government should it move against the people and their right to liberty and justice"
- jgzman, on 12/04/2007, -0/+5House Committee on Un-American Activities.
- 2trkpony, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2You're being sold more lies under the guise of "protecting America" "keeping us safe!" when in reality it's all bull ***** from the usual suspects. If these politicoid cretins were sincerely concerned about protecting this country and 'keeping us safe" from so-called terrorists, they would have forced mandatory border security and closed them down. 7 years later after 9-11 Americas borders into Canada, Mexico remain wide open. Unsecured, unprotected. A 'terrorist' could drive a suitcase nuke right in. Yet government gives us 'patriot act' 'homeland security' presidential directive NSDP51, & other Constitution eviscerating garbage. Now this. A so called "committee' to study 'homegrown terrorism' with all of the definitions & consequence at government's discretion. The "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. "Force" could be considered a non-violent street protest. Or a YouTube video with strong sentiment & message. Or a blog, or Digg article & commentary. The determination & discretion of what constitutes "force" is all left up to this government committee. It's in their hands, all up to 'them'. And you would trust such a committee & their intentions at this point?? To 'do the right thing'? Get real. "Researching homegrown terrorism" can they get any more transparent? This is all a setup to curb the rising dissent in this country from the lies & massive deceit we've all been sold. The elite criminals in power know the native taxpayer serfs are becoming very restless. They are doing everything possible to protect themselves. The fact this S 1959 sham isn't publicized & paraded all over the controlled TV news 24/7 should tell you something. Can't you see what is going on here?
- signal15, on 12/03/2007, -6/+26You are an idiot.
- stubear, on 12/03/2007, -20/+8Perhaps you should read the ENTIRE bill. Note the last sentence, "Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents." This pretty much nullifies your whole rant. Oh, that and the fact that this bill is largely focused on establishing a committee to research and better understand 'ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism'. I'd say that committee is a good thing.
- TubaTechno, on 12/03/2007, -10/+5You're being drowned out in all the sensationalism.
- qpn6ph9q, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9While the bill does stress that constitutional rights will be upheld, definitions and principles enshrined in this legislation in combination with other laws could be used to undermine protection of rights by the constitution. Constitutional protection of rights may not apply, for example, to those branded as 'terrorist' (Patriot Act) as we have seen happen with the writ of Habeas Corpus. http://lexxicon.universeii.com/2007/11/violent-rad ...
- smacksaw, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1You're the 2nd person who has gotten this wrong so far. It's not a committee, it's a COMMISSION. Like the Warren Commission that investigated the death of JFK. Presidents appoint commissions to study things. This gives the president the right to invoke a Presidential Commission to investigate.
This is actually a rather benign bill if you read it, but it's another brick along with the Patriot Act that is going to eventually build a wall away from our freedoms. But you are underreacting and everyone else is overreacting. - LeeSoong, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1"Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents." -
Right. Like unconstitutional laws have never been enforced before?
Go pay your income tax, and don't buy American Gold. - You could get in trouble,
even though buying and selling any safe metal is your constitutional right. - dbz253, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1everything in the first half violates the rights of citizens. so this whole bill is pretty much nullified. why even make it. you can't pretend to fight a ***** war on "terror" without taking away citizens' rights.
- bnl771, on 12/03/2007, -21/+3SO - This means radical Christians will get taken away if they don't get the ***** out of my face? Nice. I'd vote for it.
- sponeil, on 12/03/2007, -10/+4"We are trying to force a change in government action"
I'm not saying I'm for that bill, and I agree with some of the things you said, but that statement is complete *****. Non-violent protests are not an attempt to "force" anyone to do anything. They are an attempt to raise public awareness, sway opinions, and to let elected officials know how many people are upset about something. When protests become violent, they become an attempt to force others, and they also become an act of terrorism. Violent protests also infringe upon the Constitutional rights of others far more than this bill does.- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Depends what you mean by "force". This is the same government that decided that getting an abortion or growing pot in your own yard is interstate commerce.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3most of the time when protests become violent it is because agents provoked it.
- TubaTechno, on 12/03/2007, -4/+11I hope people realize that this bill is being used to create a commission to suggest solutions for preventing homegrown terrorism. This bill makes no laws or has any teeth.
Do you guys ever read anything? At least read the summary:
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.- skarphace, on 12/03/2007, -2/+8Thank you. You're the first person on digg that I've seen that realizes this. This misinformation campaign started with a blog post and has run rampant. While in 1 1/2 years, the commission's recommendations could lead to unconstitutional policies, that's no reason to flip ***** over nothing.
- mrvalue, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3I think that it may appear that there is a bit of overreaction about this bill. And that may be so, however it is cause for worry because it has some troubling implications and suggests that our government has the wrong attitude toward its citizens. No, the bill is not proposing that the government or this new committee will have the power to arrest people, strip them of their rights, or revoke liberties. However, such a broadly defined committee could conceivably gain additional power in the future or its findings may be used to direct law enforcement agencies against groups and individuals. This may seem worst case scenario, but unfortunately it is not at all inconceivable.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3They already have the power to all of that. they don't need this bill, this bill is to shut down the internet. if they don't like content right now they can go after the person and arrest them and detain them without charge. we haven't had habeus corpus in awhile. there are already multiple directives on the books, one of the big ones is a directive giving the president power to apprehend your person, your property or your currency if you are seen as getting in the way of furthering democracy in iraq. protesting the war is illegal.
- mrvalue, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3I think that it may appear that there is a bit of overreaction about this bill. And that may be so, however it is cause for worry because it has some troubling implications and suggests that our government has the wrong attitude toward its citizens. No, the bill is not proposing that the government or this new committee will have the power to arrest people, strip them of their rights, or revoke liberties. However, such a broadly defined committee could conceivably gain additional power in the future or its findings may be used to direct law enforcement agencies against groups and individuals. This may seem worst case scenario, but unfortunately it is not at all inconceivable.
- qpn6ph9q, on 12/03/2007, -0/+7You are absolutely correct, however, the language used in this legislation is concerning; as is the broad scope and lack of transparency. Even the title "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" is highly evocative, conveying and 'drumming up' a perception of peril or threat that is at odds with evidence and experience. Seemingly justified by this strong language alone, the definitions in the bill give the commission an overly broad scope and opaqueness to public scrutiny. These are worrying trends in legislation produced under the highly emotive umbrella of "terrorism."
The Bill ultimately begs the question, "What homegrown terrorism has there been since 9/11?" And further more: "What evidential basis is there to claim such sweeping definitions and broad scope for such a commission?"- 4chin8, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2On the surface, this legislation appears non-threatening and for the American good, but as with many things, I believe that the vagueness of the language of this bill could eradicate the power of the people to peacefully object to official government policies. If that happens we would no longer be a free country.
‘…ideologically based violence’ means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual’s political, religious, or social beliefs…
What exactly is “use of force”? If I raise my voice to my children, they consider it a use of force. Would standing on a picket line promoting my political, religious or social beliefs with a few thousand friends be a threatened use of force?
(HR 1955) “ VIOLENT RADICALIZATION.—The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.
By this definition, would not religious missionaries be criminals?
(HR 1955) “SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.
“(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.
I believe that the internet is a tool for good as well as evil and studying how potential terrorists might use such a tool for evil to disseminate information is a good aim. I would welcome law enforcement agencies to find better ways to track and apprehend criminals that would use this medium for bad purposes. In this respect the internet is like a gun. The gun itself is not evil, but evil people will use guns and anything else to pursue their evil goals. If the internet is locked-down and its use regulated totally preventing evil people from using it to spread their information, they will use other traditional forms of spreading information: codes, face-to-face, phone, and mail. It will just eliminate one way to track them.
- 4chin8, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2On the surface, this legislation appears non-threatening and for the American good, but as with many things, I believe that the vagueness of the language of this bill could eradicate the power of the people to peacefully object to official government policies. If that happens we would no longer be a free country.
- skarphace, on 12/03/2007, -2/+8Thank you. You're the first person on digg that I've seen that realizes this. This misinformation campaign started with a blog post and has run rampant. While in 1 1/2 years, the commission's recommendations could lead to unconstitutional policies, that's no reason to flip ***** over nothing.
- AgmLauncher, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1"Do you see the words "force OR violence?". What is it that we try to accomplish when forming, or participating in a grassroots movement, a protest, an email, phone, or letter campaign?
We are trying to force a change in government action, ideology, or trying to force a change in thought of every day citizens who have the power to locally affect legislation being passed in their state, or local communities."
It's pretty obvious that they mean force in terms of physical force (which is, and always has been, illegal btw)
- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -9/+72Here is a letter that I just typed out. It contains some of the same material from the previous one. Feel free to use it or draw upon it. Send it to anyone you like, the more the merrier. We need to get this, or anything else, out to as many people as possible. Make sure you include the name(s) of your Senator(s), as well as your name at the bottom (as, correct me if I'm wrong, but a lot of times, the staff will throw out letters that are not from the constituency as that particular senator). I'm going to send these out to my senators today, after I get more stamps. Please do the same.
Dear Senator
It has come to my attention, that The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This is now up for review in the Senate Judiciary committee, listed as S.1959.
Per the language used in the Act itself, S.1959 defines Homegrown Terrorism as: "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."
"The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs."
Congress found: "The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security."
Congress also found: "The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."
Congress also noted: "Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations."
These findings and definition are of grave concern to us U.S. citizens. The countries listed as having experience and influence of terrorism and terrorism prevention, have consolidated their media under government decree (Canada), leaving almost no room for open, unbiased, investigative journalism that would inform the citizens of the goings on the their countries that should bring concern. The United Kingdom, as well as the United States have begun installing CCTV cameras in public places that will track and monitor, individual faces of persons engaging in loosely defined "suspicious activity". There have been news reports of business in the process of implementing hovering surveillance devices that can monitor visual and audio activity of suspects, as well as surveillance devices that can assist police and government organizations in deterring aggressive resistance of arrest or detainment, by issuing small electric shocks similar to that of the controversial taser device.
This act also allows for a central organization to be created to monitor, detect, and report on suspicious "homegrown terrorist activity within the United States". The definition of such activity is vague, leaving room for the possibility of anyone seriously advocating social change, restoration of the constitution, and advocating the organization of protests to "coerce the United States government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof".
This Act is undermining, and threatening, the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to organize in dissent of the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance, telecom immunity, social injustice, the War on Terror, or any other program that the citizenry feels is in violation of their inalienable rights as U.S. citizens.
We have had enough. Your constituency, the people you represent, are asking that you vote no when this Act comes up for review.
Here is the website containing the Act (House Resolution HR1955, also S. 1959) in full detail: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ...
All U.S. citizens who are doing nothing but voicing their opinions against a President and Vice President who have expanded their executive powers, bypassed our congressional check and balance, and has undermined our U.S. Judiciary System, are now at risk, by this new act, of being labeled and prosecuted as a terrorist. Vote NO on S.1959.
Thank you,
Here is a link to all of the Senators, and their contact information (name, address, phone number):
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ ...- principle, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7Don’t waist your postage stamps. Calling them, works better.
To find your senator go to:
http://www.senate.gov/ - Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Whomever writes a letter should put this at the end.
"
Thank you,
signed name
name
Freedom loving U.S. citizen
Your Constituent.
" - TheVirus, on 12/04/2007, -0/+4Used the email webform. Will call tomorrow.
- phnx0221, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Thanks for the idea! I'm going to do that right now.
- brad3378, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Did you sign the letter with your real name? Don't you realize that you basically just told the FBI to come knock on your door? It was nice knowin' ya. - but just remember - you don't know me - okay?
- phnx0221, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2With concerns such as these, for me personally, I think it's important to stay as visible as possible. I included my name in the letter, although I did consider not doing so for those reasons. I'm going to defiantly express who I am, without fear of repercussions, because the second I fear those consequences, I'm going to doubt my actions. I don't want to risk that hesitation. There is still a lot more work to do in that regard, but at some point, if I go missing, I know some people are going to take notice of that, and I also know of some people that will actively campaign for my cause, as I will the, should things go that far.
- dordnuuv8, on 12/06/2007, -0/+1Minor point- it's in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=S ...
S. 1959
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110 ...
- principle, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7Don’t waist your postage stamps. Calling them, works better.
- DeadElephantORG, on 12/03/2007, -4/+28Freedom!
STRICTLY ENFORCED- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -11/+5Uh...by the dems, since they control congress, eh?
- heinousjay, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1Hahaha, shhhh. Don't give away the secret.
- 13B1303, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1http://www.gadsden.info/i/clipart/Culpeper-flag.gi ...
- TubaTechno, on 12/03/2007, -6/+2Hmm.... look at the sponsors of the bill. Which party hates our freedoms?
- technoholic, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13both?
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Hmmm...and even better, look at the actual votes...
219 dems for it, 3 against it, 10 didn't vote...that's a pass right there, regardless of how anyone else voted...
But this must be a Bush/Cheney/Republican thing, eh?
Nah...let's look at the sponsors...
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA] is the sponsor...
Cosponsors [as of 2007-10-24]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Norman Dicks [D-WA]
Rep. Al Green [D-TX]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS]- KidDynamo0, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Yeah and they are all douches...Whats your point. Lets look at the track recorded of both parties to date. Republicans have setup all the laws to get around our constitution. Democrats have fallen in line with most because they are scared to be different. In conclusion...both parties are retarded. That doesnt mean that all the members of said party are bad. Both have stand out characters...
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -11/+5Uh...by the dems, since they control congress, eh?
- Thrash16, on 12/03/2007, -11/+37If Diggers want to TRULY show that they can make a difference in the world, they will aid those of us who are rallying to STOP THIS BILL! Isnt Digg supposed to be the place of freedom of speech? Isnt Digg supposed to be a collection of the smartest, most informed citizens? Isnt Digg a place we can go to change things? It might not be for much longer...I called my Senator, have you?
- loneBoat, on 12/03/2007, -4/+12"Isnt Digg supposed to be a collection of the smartest, most informed citizens?"
Hasn't been my experience so far...- Ndiggnation, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2I'd say http://www.plastic.com has digg beat in that category by far..
- TubaTechno, on 12/03/2007, -2/+6Is he serious? "smartest, most informed citizens"?! I didn't realize he gave that much credit Digg's users. He must be new.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Funniest thing I've ever seen on digg...hahahaha! Smartest, most informed...hahahahaha!
- Monk22, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3no digg is somewhere i go to waste time when im bored.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1that is what i thought but for some reason we keep getting people like the above comments coming in to cloud up real discussions.
- sgtpppr, on 12/04/2007, -2/+3Digg is actually an evangelical tool for Apple and the manufacturers of emo glasses. Political talk is allowed, but action is not.
- loneBoat, on 12/03/2007, -4/+12"Isnt Digg supposed to be a collection of the smartest, most informed citizens?"
- cocreator10, on 12/03/2007, -6/+9 Breath deep the gathering gloom,..................Don't give up without a fight!
- iching, on 12/03/2007, -8/+41NON-VIOLENT dissent is a target of this bill:
"Of course all of my criticism is toothless without acknowledging the ‘vaguely defined forms of dissent.’ At this point you may be wondering to what kinds of dissent I refer. Here is where it is important to look back at the frightening definitions about which so many are now talking. In section 899A the terms included in the bill’s title are defined. ‘Violent Radicalization’ is defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology, that one has yet to adopt. If you don’t believe in the ‘ideologically based violence’ your ‘belief system’ dictates then you can’t be said to have that as your motive to adopt the ‘belief system.’ You haven’t adopted the ‘belief system’ that guided you to commit the violence if the violence is the motive for ‘adopting’ the ‘belief system,’ it isn’t logically possible. This fallacy is implicit, in my opinion, in the phrase ‘for the purpose of.’ It is impossible for the violence to lead to the beliefs that lead to the violence without contradicting the premise that the beliefs lead to the violence.
Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence.
It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."
Fallacies aside, the real threat I noticed is in the way the bill then further defines ‘ideologically based violence.’ This type of violence, given its definition, may not always be what we traditionally think of as violence. It is defined not only as physically noticeable violence, but also thinking about and/or threatening to use not only violence, but WHATEVER ELSE they can interpret as a type of force as well. The vague language includes “planned use” and “threatened use, of force or violence.” This can semantically expand the legal understanding of the definition of ‘violence’ to include NON-VIOLENT FORMS OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE OR DIRECT ACTION because they are seen as forceful. The bill doesn’t say that force and violence must both be present in order to define it as ‘ideologically based violence,’ rather it uses the conjunction “or,” leaving open the possibility of defining either ‘force’ or actual ‘violence’ as ‘ideologically based violence,’ and “Homegrown Terrorism” if it is done by “a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States,” including U.S. zones of jurisdiction outside the 50 states, “to intimidate or coerce,” according to the similarly vague definition of ‘homegrown terrorism’ on the same page."- WilliamTanksley, on 12/04/2007, -3/+0Quote: "This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology"
Wrong, ridiculous, and pointless. Many agitators have promoted a violent philosophy that they did not adopt in order to take advantage of the violence of its adherents for their own ends; it's one of the most common happenings in the world. Consider how many revolutions have been co-opted by merely dictatorial leaders. Your objection is pointless, of course, because even if this co-option were unlikely it would be stupid to exclude it from the bill: people accused of adopting a violent view would show in their defense that they really didn't believe it at all.
"The vague language includes 'planned use' and 'threatened use, of force or violence.'"
Let's suppose that this language is actually vague. Okay, so what? This is a commission to study the stuff, not a police force to stamp it out.
But passing that by, your belief that the language is vague is also incorrect. The distinction being made here is the same as the legal distinction between "assault" and "battery" -- one being a credible threat of personal force, the other being directly perpetrated personal violence.- iching, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1'This is a commission to study this stuff' .......thank you .Commissar for proving another point.
The institute of political commissars has been established to control the military forces by the Communist party. The Soviet Army (together with the whole Soviet state) was also controled by the state security organizations, such as SMERSH and the KGB
"people accused of adopting a violent view would show in their defense that they really didn't believe it at all."
Thought crime
- iching, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1'This is a commission to study this stuff' .......thank you .Commissar for proving another point.
- WilliamTanksley, on 12/04/2007, -3/+0Quote: "This ‘process’ is based on a fallacy to begin with, considering that it makes no sense to adopt a belief system in order to facilitate violence based on that ideology"
- rhedwolf, on 12/03/2007, -6/+14Where are the protests in Washington? Nothing will change unless people rally outside the Senate and this gets onto national news.
- wynja, on 12/03/2007, -2/+14Dude, we've been rallying outside the Senate since the onset of this twisted war. It's done no good. The only way to affect change is to vote out all the incumbents in the House and Senate that have voted for the war and all these violations of our Constitutional rights.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -6/+4Eh? Oh come on now...don't call the crap code pink does protesting and/or rallying. Crap like that just gives the career politicians the ammo they need to push this trash through...
- jennifer4peace, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4actually code pink is there evryday sitting in these meetings and making their voice heard. noone would know who they were if they weren't. maybe we all should get out there and talk to some of these people and realize we are all fighting for the same thing we just have different methods, it doesn't take away from the message. it is the people who tell the politicians what is exceptable to use as ammo, if we all told them we are with the protestors, they would be using it for votes. WE THE PEOPLE decide what we want and WE THE PEOPLE need to get these "career politicians" out of Washington, they are the true country killers.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -6/+4Eh? Oh come on now...don't call the crap code pink does protesting and/or rallying. Crap like that just gives the career politicians the ammo they need to push this trash through...
- rhedwolf, on 12/03/2007, -0/+5Well something needs to change, because if we have to wait an entire year for the elections, it will already be too late.
- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1The only solution is to shoot everyone in Washington. Better do it before this law makes it illegal!
- dbz253, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1next time there is a large protest, everyone needs to bring guns
- wynja, on 12/03/2007, -2/+14Dude, we've been rallying outside the Senate since the onset of this twisted war. It's done no good. The only way to affect change is to vote out all the incumbents in the House and Senate that have voted for the war and all these violations of our Constitutional rights.
- unclejemima, on 12/03/2007, -15/+3That's all well and good but what does this have to do with Ron Paul?
- MrsButtersworth, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3I assume youre one of the Ron Paul supporters cause its the cool thing to do.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -12/+8Yeah...and keep in mind the Democrats are in control of both the house and senate...
Sounds a whole lot like moving towards a nanny state a la the UK. And that isn't a good thing...- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -2/+10Once again, it is not just the democrats. It is the Republicans too. Both parties have been putting forth bills that are infringing on our civil rights and liberties. Republicans and democrats are one in the same, with the very same interests, with very few (although there are some) exceptions. The only difference in their makeup, is the audience they are catering to.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3Oh, trust me...I know full well that they're one and the same...the differences between the two parties are slight, to say the least. And they both need to take a nice dirt nap.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2money is the only thing these people want or care about or vote for or against. we must clean house, we need to have a hearing looking at all the politicians, what payroll they are on and what their voting record is. if they are proven to not be working for America; they are fired!
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3Oh, trust me...I know full well that they're one and the same...the differences between the two parties are slight, to say the least. And they both need to take a nice dirt nap.
- richardbeasimer, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1And, the Democrats are not in "control" of either chamber. They may have the majority of seats, but they don't have a large enough number of them (two-thirds) to be able to significantly affect any legislation without getting Republicans on their side of an issue.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Dude...straight up legislation doesn't require 2/3rds to pass. It just takes a majority...especially in the House.
- richardbeasimer, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0I am aware of that. But we've already seen that a simply having the "majority" (2 seats in the Senate and 31 in the House) has not been enough to get things done since the 2006 election.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3Dude...straight up legislation doesn't require 2/3rds to pass. It just takes a majority...especially in the House.
- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -2/+10Once again, it is not just the democrats. It is the Republicans too. Both parties have been putting forth bills that are infringing on our civil rights and liberties. Republicans and democrats are one in the same, with the very same interests, with very few (although there are some) exceptions. The only difference in their makeup, is the audience they are catering to.
- heartcoldfusion, on 12/03/2007, -4/+9Unfortunately, it looks like free speech for this guy's account has been suspsended.
- brianbb98, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2Maybe they started it early?
- brianbb98, on 12/03/2007, -5/+121959=1984
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 12/03/2007, -1/+6Reflection:
http://duggmirror.com/politics/Today_Is_Critical_A ... - FreeStater, on 12/03/2007, -5/+10When people start to realize the ramifications of this, we will see the populace begin to understand how vigilant we must be in the future to prevent things like this Patriot Ac.. I mean, Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, from happening in the future. We'll be ready next time! Fool us once, shame on you! .... the point is, don't fool us again.
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2The problem is, this ***** is sliding through DC faster than it can even register on most people's radar. This is why we need RON PAUL in there, because it goes against his FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF SYSTEM.
- FreeStater, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Good point. Obviously, with mediums like Digg (assuming they stop censoring) around, perhaps there is reason to be optimistic about the citizens vigilance in the future. It's just gotten so bad, so fast, that I can be a bit pessimistic.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Dude they are not even trying to fool people. they just know that people will not care and they will not read and they will only care about what they are going to buy their kids for christmas. we have a real problem in this country and it is called APATHY!
- 2trkpony, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2More consumers are concerned about tuning in the latest "Dancing With the Stars" episode than something truly important as this S 1959 farce, sadly enough. Weapons of Mass Distraction. Government gets away with this ***** because they know nobody gives less than a crap. People don't pay attention, they don't read nor understand what is truly going on. A dumbed down populace expertly manipulated to knee-jerk react at all the latest sound-bytes "for the children!" "a safer world" "fight terrorism" "truth = BAD" Osama Bin Laden videos from caves overseas, and the latest George Bush rhetoric to rally the troops. America is not like it was in the 60s, 70's where people were actually AWAKE, critical of the government, questioned things, asked "WHY?" and knew what was going on and were CONCERNED for their future. Nowadays in this de-volved society of we're cursed with, the unfeeling robot masses prefer to leave everything in the hands of their loving government on autopilot. They don't want to think, they want their TV to do it for them. They don't have an opinion, that is done by their Faux News & Glen Beck / Bill O'Reilly segments. The droids believe whatever their government tells them as "fact" without ever considering their agenda. It's a sad state of affairs for America. Divided & conquered, fighting over meaningless bull ***** like "left vs right" "republican vs democrat" while the globalist criminal elite who REALLY control this country & the lapdog policoid sell-out traitorous scum take over, dominate & rule a complacent, apathetic horde of consumer-shopper serfs.
It's going to have to get a whole lot worse before it ever has any chance of getting better.
- 2trkpony, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2More consumers are concerned about tuning in the latest "Dancing With the Stars" episode than something truly important as this S 1959 farce, sadly enough. Weapons of Mass Distraction. Government gets away with this ***** because they know nobody gives less than a crap. People don't pay attention, they don't read nor understand what is truly going on. A dumbed down populace expertly manipulated to knee-jerk react at all the latest sound-bytes "for the children!" "a safer world" "fight terrorism" "truth = BAD" Osama Bin Laden videos from caves overseas, and the latest George Bush rhetoric to rally the troops. America is not like it was in the 60s, 70's where people were actually AWAKE, critical of the government, questioned things, asked "WHY?" and knew what was going on and were CONCERNED for their future. Nowadays in this de-volved society of we're cursed with, the unfeeling robot masses prefer to leave everything in the hands of their loving government on autopilot. They don't want to think, they want their TV to do it for them. They don't have an opinion, that is done by their Faux News & Glen Beck / Bill O'Reilly segments. The droids believe whatever their government tells them as "fact" without ever considering their agenda. It's a sad state of affairs for America. Divided & conquered, fighting over meaningless bull ***** like "left vs right" "republican vs democrat" while the globalist criminal elite who REALLY control this country & the lapdog policoid sell-out traitorous scum take over, dominate & rule a complacent, apathetic horde of consumer-shopper serfs.
- MindTrigger, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2The problem is, this ***** is sliding through DC faster than it can even register on most people's radar. This is why we need RON PAUL in there, because it goes against his FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF SYSTEM.
- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -3/+2Did anyone happen to copy the text before it went down?
Regardless, we still need to keep this thread going. Here is an alternate site, from afterdowningstreet.org.
The links to the legislation are also contained within.
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28941- phnx0221, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2I didn't refresh the page before posting this comment. Veni Vidi Vici posted a mirror (as you can plainly see). :) Sorry about that.
- MrsButtersworth, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2When is the vote for this?
- bingobongony, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3"as all of the authors seem to agree"? What authors?
- Dustin00, on 12/03/2007, -5/+5If it passes, doesn't that mean we have every person that voted for it locked up for threatening the Constitution?
- flahavin, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I'd say so.
- 2trkpony, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1That should be priority 1. But since when do 'we the people' have any say or influence about anything in this country? Besides lining up for 'black Friday' shopping marathons at WALMART, or maxing out the credit cards at Nordstroms pre-christmas 10% off early shopper sale..
- mburk, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1No, it doesn't, because this bill does nothing beyond create a commission to study the cause/effect of homegrown terrorism. It calls for no new laws to punish those who dissent and designates no organization to enforce. Please read the bill.
- MrsButtersworth, on 12/03/2007, -5/+3Today Is Critical, And We Must Join-in To Kill S 1959
December 3rd, 2007
To state that today is critical would be a gross understatement; the Internet is buzzing about the upcoming passage of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, yet through all of the talk and articles, we still haven’t joined-in with enough numbers to stop this Bill dead in its tracks - and if we don’t, as all of the author’s seem to agree, Free Speech in American could effectively become a memory, and those who have constantly fought for our freedom(s) will likely be muzzled and may be hauled-off to internment camps, which we now know exist and when S 1959 is passed into law, it’s inevitable that they will soon be used. LINK Yes, they are real, and were built by FEMA and KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary. Do your own Internet search and you will find pictures and documentation of these camps, yet the Mainstream New Media hasn’t uttered a word to the public about these camps, which demonstrates the MSM has been totally compromised as a reliable news source.
Positive Universe Abstracts has an entire page devoted to the plethora of Op-Eds and articles on this subject you can find at this LINK. Two more informative and frightening articles were published last night or this morning, and both offer the reality we may face if this Bill, the worst assault on the Constitution in this nations history, is allowed to pass:
Senate Bill 1959 to Criminalize Patriotism
Urgent call to Action: Facts about S1959, Action Alerts
There is factual evidence supplied in all of the above articles, but the piece which is missing is how to stop this bill dead in its tracks, and although I commend all on taking this odious Bill to task - the time for action is now, before the Bill is passed and then, nothing will save this nation from tyranny. We must join-in in solidarity to halt this egregious assault on our Constitutional rights, and several sites are openly re-printing how we can do it.
Please read How To Make A Grassroots Movement Successful and then take matters into your own hands and urge others to do the same. There is a solution, but simply writing about the problem won’t make it go away, and only your participation will - so please, don’t think that it couldn’t happen to us as the Jews did in Germany, even as they were in the railroad cars on their voyage to death and imprisonment. We may face similar fates ourselves if we don’t band-together and speak-out in unison and there is very little time left. The Bill is being fast-tracked, so its passage could occur at any time.
Help to save yourselves and the beloved country we grew-up in, and make a statement, not tomorrow or the day after, but today, and each and every day thereafter until this Bill is declared dead. To do otherwise is to allow you to find yourselves in one of those camps in the not too distant future, and only by speaking-out today will we be able to circumvent the horror of tomorrow if this Bill is allowed to pass.
William Cormier
FOOTNOTE: To help make this phone and email protest to be effective, it is imperative to re-post this message on every Progressive/Liberal Blog in America, and to make it a subject on all of those Discussion forums so the bulk of those who find their news on the Internet are aware of this message.
Google, thankfully, shows this article on their search engines. Yahoo, MSM, and even Technorati will not show any results when you search for this article. It shows the government is concerned, and every effort is being made to kill this story, yet it still remains popular and I’ve noted the colleges in particular are reading this story, as well as thousands of others all over the United States. Once again, my hat is off to Google for remaining true to their base and have evidently decided to side with the people rather than the government.
There are two very long comments on DIGG that talk in depth of the need to defeat this Bill, and another offers a sample letter to send to Congress - and I deeply appreciate their help and they are reprinted below for your perusal; don’t, however, forget to burn-up those phone lines in Washington. It’s critical that our Senate understand that the people have “had enough” - and it’s time for change! - FredFredrickson, on 12/03/2007, -1/+32This just in: Merely digging this article will not stop S 1959 from turning into law.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5You're going to get buried for stating the obvious, and for proving that some diggtards are too stupid to realize this!
- Identity4, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4exactly, but Look above and you shall find links to your Senator. Why not give them a holla' and tell them how you feel?
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Uh, we all have two senators, not just one.
And both of mine appear to be supporting it...I'll be voting against Mitch next year, if a democrat of worth runs against him.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4Uh, we all have two senators, not just one.
- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1There's nothing you can do unless you're a senator. Sucks to be you.
- flahavin, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Thats not entirely true...you could intentionally break the newly passed "law"...and somehow get it all the way up to the supreme court. It'll take a few million, some top notch lawyers, and judges that really know what the law of the land means.
- jennifer4peace, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1hahaha that was funny!
- StevenJV, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12Response from my Senator:
Thank you for expressing your concerns about H.R.1955 and S.1959, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
H.R.1955 and S.1959 amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of terrorism by those born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States.
The bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security to establish a grant program to help prevent homegrown terrorism and the use of extremist belief systems to facilitate ideologically-based violence. It would also establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States and conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
In addition, the bill explicitly states that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism may not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any American citizens or lawful permanent residents.
H.R.1955 passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 404 to 6. Should S.1959 reach the Senate floor, I will keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13Sounds like your senator is voting for it! But he/she will keep your views in mind as he/she does!
- Nidy1, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3"In addition, the bill explicitly states that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism may not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any American citizens or lawful permanent residents."
He gave the reason he was voting for it.- Monk22, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1thats not a reason to vote for it. that sounds more like a counter point to the point the OP was making in his letter. a point which by the senator and on digg has stated that it cannot violate your rights, thus your reason is null and void.
not that i agree with the bill, im just sayin.
- Monk22, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1thats not a reason to vote for it. that sounds more like a counter point to the point the OP was making in his letter. a point which by the senator and on digg has stated that it cannot violate your rights, thus your reason is null and void.
- Nidy1, on 12/03/2007, -1/+3"In addition, the bill explicitly states that the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism may not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any American citizens or lawful permanent residents."
- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -1/+8Wouldn't it be more concise and to the same effect if he just wrote "***** you" on a cocktail napkin?
- 2trkpony, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1LOL! no doubt...
What's even funnier is I received the EXACT same form letter from "my" {yeah like he really works for me...} senator. Complete with the pre-copied signature footer & self-addressed stamped envelope. I know the senator schmuck NEVER even read my letter. It was probably an office clerk or page who simply stuck the standard auto-copy letterhead into an envelope & mailed back to me. What a joke.
We have no representative government in this country any more. That is nothing but illusion to be propped up by the 'powers that be". These senators & congress-critter sell-out phonies DO NOT CARE what "we" think. They don't work for us, nor give less than a flying ***** about 'the people's best interests or what we want for this country. If 'voting' actually changed things it would be illegal.
- 2trkpony, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1LOL! no doubt...
- Proletariat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Pretty much the same exact response i got from my senator, which is Obama.
Dear (My name):
Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.
As you know, this legislation, as referred to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security, would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to create a national commission to examine and prepare a report on the causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States. The legislation would also establish a Center of Excellence to study the roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism and methods that can be used by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate and prevent homegrown terrorism. The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe. They also insist that our responses to threats respect the constitution and do not violate the basic tenets of our democracy. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act includes provisions prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security's efforts from violating civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.
As you mention, this legislation passed the House on October 23, 2007. I will keep your important comments in mind as I work with my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. I will work to ensure that this legislation helps to achieve our domestic security objectives while protecting civil liberties and constitutional rights.
Thank you again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
P.S. Our system does not allow direct response to this email. However, if you would like to contact me again, please use the form on the website: http://obama.senate.gov/contact/- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/04/2007, -2/+0That seems like a damn good idea to me. If they arrest a few wannabe bomb-throwing anarchists in the process, all the better.
The big irony here is that this bill aims to do exactly what liberals wanted: refocus the War on Terror away from foreign military intervention and towards domestic police action, away from the Islamic fundamentalists and towards the Christian fundamentalists. It goes to show you just can't please everybody.
(Of course, this is no longer a left-right issue. The lines have blurred. Anti-American Populism is now comprised of both extreme left and extreme right screwcases, just like the German Workers Party in 1919.)
- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/04/2007, -2/+0That seems like a damn good idea to me. If they arrest a few wannabe bomb-throwing anarchists in the process, all the better.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+13Sounds like your senator is voting for it! But he/she will keep your views in mind as he/she does!
- sholde4, on 12/03/2007, -14/+4You could start the fight be naming the right bill. It's 1955, not 1959. Buried as failure.
- spyd3rweb, on 12/03/2007, -0/+12You fail its HR1955 and S1959. Its already passed the house so now its 1959.
- MrsButtersworth, on 12/03/2007, -0/+9It was 1955 in the House, its now S.1959 in the Senate. Who has failed now?
- qubitz, on 12/03/2007, -4/+4So long America...it was good while it lasted....right?
- MrsButtersworth, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Shut up. Get off your ass and start calling your senators if you give a *****. This ***** passes because people like you sit on your ass thinking you cant do anything about it. When in reality you can, but are probably too lazy to do anything.
- flahavin, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Can't you read...two senators have already told their "constituents" they don't give a ***** about them. The system is broke, and its laws like this that prevent us from fixing it. If this law passes, the idea of overthrowing the government is now an act of terrorism(which is why the second amendment was written in the first place). If this bill passes, and the supreme court upholds the DC hand-gun ban, bend on over and pre-lube up....cause then you can't do anything from the government from trampling on the rest of the rights left.
Unless you can lobby these *****, your voice don't count...sadly
- flahavin, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Can't you read...two senators have already told their "constituents" they don't give a ***** about them. The system is broke, and its laws like this that prevent us from fixing it. If this law passes, the idea of overthrowing the government is now an act of terrorism(which is why the second amendment was written in the first place). If this bill passes, and the supreme court upholds the DC hand-gun ban, bend on over and pre-lube up....cause then you can't do anything from the government from trampling on the rest of the rights left.
- MrsButtersworth, on 12/03/2007, -1/+2Shut up. Get off your ass and start calling your senators if you give a *****. This ***** passes because people like you sit on your ass thinking you cant do anything about it. When in reality you can, but are probably too lazy to do anything.
- icegoddess13, on 12/03/2007, -2/+3THIS BILL HAS ALREADY MADE IT THROUGH THE HOUSE, BUT UNDER THE NUMBER 1955 AND WITH THE EXACT SAME TITLE!!!!
Go look it up, they've already been on the track of screwing us, but this is the exact same thing everyone's in a frenzy about!- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Well duh...and a total of 3 (three) democrats and 3 (three) republicans voted against it.
Unfortunately, Dr. Paul was absent...so he'll have to answer a question as to where he stands.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -0/+1Well duh...and a total of 3 (three) democrats and 3 (three) republicans voted against it.
- DrMilkdad, on 12/03/2007, -3/+9LoL, what the ***** is wrong over there? Stop ruining your country please, thanks!
- majebote, on 12/04/2007, -1/+0And where might you be from?
- Pinhedd, on 12/03/2007, -2/+9this bill should be S1984
- BenJammin22, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2On the plus side, the internet allows to know about these abuses of power and it's encouraging to see more people care than would normally give a *****.
- h0m3styl3, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7I've never wrote in to our senators before, but today I wrote to both. I hope you all will as well.
- admcmxcii, on 12/03/2007, -12/+7When will Diggers learn...
Firstly, it explicitly states in the bill that it won't sacrifice any constitutional or civil rights. What you are getting freaked out about is a long stretch and *GASP* completely implied.
Let's analyze this logically.
(1) The politicians obviously read this (Unlike in the PATRIOT Act and you guys)
(2) The Bill only had 6 in the House vote against it-- and they have educations as politicians and have sworn to preserve our liberties-- I'm sure they would know if it was extremely dangerous (After reading it)
(3) The Bill doesn't fight against free speech, and unless you use free speech to make a threat against America and to use violence, you aren't disobeying the Bill.
(4) Those folks in New Zealand or something had Political Satire banned. That's a lot worse than this (Freedom of the Press and Speech against the government is essentially taken away) and you don't see Digg freaking out about that-- it's surrendering the freedoms in a developed country, something we should all care about.
(5) This has already been brought up, and sooner or later all the comments started to cool down and look at the situations logically like I just did.
Of course, you can think whatever you want, because there is no "Thought Police", this is all just a fantasy that seemed to get a lot of Diggs.- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -1/+1Of course. You can say anything you want, as long as it's pro-America, whatever that means.
- decavolt, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1I've read this bill, along with each incarnation of the Patriot Act. Did you?
Let's go over your points:
1) What makes you so sure your representatives have read this bill other than blind assumption?
2) "and they have educations as politicians" -- exactly. "...and have sworn to preserve our liberties - I'm sure they would know..." Holy shiat, what an idiotic statement. How many times do we need to see members of the current administration be exposed for circumventing the Constitution before you'll understand that taking the oath of office doesn't magically make the person reciting it become good, honest and intelligent? I'm really glad you have such faith in our representatives. Unfortunately, I've been paying attention and therefore find it a little hard to be so optimistically uninformed.
3) You're missing the point, again. The bill makes it that much easier for anyone speaking out against the government to find themselves in a world of trouble. What incredibly naivety you have if you think the powers this bill would grant will not be profoundly abused and that it will only be used lawfully and as intended. See the Patriot Act and a dozen other passed bills for examples of this.
4) Apples and oranges. Let's compare a very small country with a population of 4.2 million to the United States, which has a population of 302.9 million, and forget all about this U.S. bill entirely because New Zealand has their own crazy government problems. The existence of a problem in country A does not make the existence of a problem in country B just disappear.
5) Good for you. It's great that you're so confident and have such faith in the people making the rules you live under that you see no need for concern or even due diligence when bills like this come up, and that you're content to just blow everything off as wack-job fantasy because you're so sure that those in power do, truly, have YOUR best interests in mind. They wouldn't, for example, go to war under false pretenses, or feed us lies to cover their tracks after the fact... Oh sh*t, wait. Hm, that's exactly what they did. - myborgdrone, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1(1) Your first comment is ignorant. Both Republican and Democrat candidates have admitted that they don't read the bills because they don't have time. Their "people" read them and give them a quick synopsis.
(2) Our politicians have sworn to protect our liberties but their actions show that they are more interested in protecting their own agendas. How can you live in times like these and have the belief system you do? Our government did not have our liberties in mind when they started this war and they don't have our liberties in mind as they plan on staying in the war. This statement is party neutral since both parties have stated they are staying.
(3) Currently I have a right to say that the people that run our government do not have our interest in mind and we should rise up and take control of our government and our destinies. If that bill passes, my statement could be "interpreted" as violent and I could be jailed.
(4) Are you trying to say that since other countries run themselves into the ground, it is okay if we do the same? Are you serious?
(5) This is what all the politicians want you to do whenever they try to pass a bill that is as disgusting as this. Let time pass, you will cool down and not do anything and another one of our rights gets obliterated. No one should calm down. Everyone should rise up by getting on the phones and writing letters. There is no press on this because they want you to just forget about it. These aren't just some words on a computer monitor that you are reading. This is our lives.
- bigfatpaulie, on 12/03/2007, -2/+7The Fox News call to arms against Iran sounds like violent radicalization. If this gets them off the air, I'm all for it.
- mburk, on 12/03/2007, -8/+6Guys, there was an article about HR1955 on the homepage about a week or so ago and some fool was all up in arms about it. If I remember correctly all this bill does is set up a commission to study the causes/effects of homegrown terrorism. It doesn't establish any penalties, nor designate how any penalties would be enforced. It's just to set up a commission for study. It may be a waste of money, but nothing wrong with the government spending money to allow us to better understand the issues before they go pass the seriously harmful legislation. Can you all please READ THE DAMN BILL before you post all this knee-jerk *****.
- whammy, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2I still can't figure out why everyone's underwear is all knotted up. I can't find a damn thing in it that gives anyone authority to do more than write a big book report. Hrrmph.
- mburk, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Exactly, and I'm getting dugg down. whaddyagonnado when you get a group of headline readers in a room...
- Gemfinder, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2Finally, a few voices of reason in the tumult of paranoia!
I wonder if the 9/11 Commission's report would have faced this much hysteria?
By the time this Commission's report is delivered, Shrub will be in his living room in Crawford, going over architect's elevations for his Presidential Library (there's an irony, right there).
Go ahead and digg me down. Quick, before you bust a blood vessel.
- whammy, on 12/04/2007, -1/+2I still can't figure out why everyone's underwear is all knotted up. I can't find a damn thing in it that gives anyone authority to do more than write a big book report. Hrrmph.
- GothAlice, on 12/03/2007, -3/+8If people protest the bill after it has been passed, by demonstrating (say, walking around with megaphones and signs) in front of the White House or Senate, they can be arrested as terrorists because they are a group or individual being "forceful" to enact social and/or political change. Wow, the United States is scary *****-up. Makes me glad I'm not American.
- badqat, on 12/03/2007, -5/+4Based on your inaccurate understanding of the bill, or much else, we're glad you're not an American too!
- RAEP, on 12/03/2007, -1/+9I thought that many of the points outlined in our constitution and bill of rights were suggesting that if the US government goes out of control, the citizens should be ready to take up arms and take it back. Now they seem to be making that illegal.
- admcmxcii, on 12/03/2007, -0/+2A government never sees it as legal with a revolution (look at the Civil War, for instance). Also, it's good because then a person can't just restart America because he's crazy. But if is an "unalienable human right" and is outlined well in the Declaration of Independence.
- senatorpjt, on 12/03/2007, -0/+3It's already illegal, unless you win.
- binorgog, on 08/07/2008, -5/+4I would bet that the people with more than -3 diggs are under 25.
- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/03/2007, -2/+1That's funny. I was thinking the exact opposite.
- DonTazeMeBro, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Enjoy being dugg.
- Jareth86, on 12/03/2007, -5/+3You know what? I'm sick of a government that doesn't listen. I'm sick of constantly fighting tooth and nail to keep a failing democracy intact. I'm sick of constantly being forced to choose between two candidates who are essentially the same person and will get nothing good done anyhow.
And now this bill?! I just can't take this anymore.
***** all this, I'm moving to Norway. You can all blog and protest and pretend the people passing this law give a ***** about what you think.- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2You're fighting tooth and nail--to keep a failing democracy intact? When did this happen? Where? Haven't you just been posting annoying messages online?
- MikeFallopian, on 12/04/2007, -2/+0But... but I thought Congressmen listened to the whiny online rantings of teenagers.
- Jareth86, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Ironically, I've been outside the capital protesting a number of times (which I'm SURE is more than you can say), and am shocked and saddened by the lack of people out there.
- spyseetuna, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Norwegian Directorate of Immigration
http://www.udi.no/default.aspx?id=2112
send a postcard! - jaymzdean, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3You should be fighting for our Representative Republic. Democracies don't have individual liberties. And this isn't a democracy.
- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/03/2007, -2/+2You're fighting tooth and nail--to keep a failing democracy intact? When did this happen? Where? Haven't you just been posting annoying messages online?
- MikeFallopian, on 12/03/2007, -3/+3If someone is able to point out to me the text in this bill that explicitly criminilizes any "thought crime" behavior whatsoever, I'll be more than happy to write angry letters to my Congressmen. I have not been able to find any such text on my own, so at this point I have come to the conclusion that people are overhyping the impact of the bill. As I understand it, the bill says that homegrown terrorism is bad and should be combatted, and that the government should research ways to stop it while still maintaining civil liberties. Sorry, but I don't see what's so objectionable about that.
- alternativecatI, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2They are calling US Citizens terrorists. What terrorists? Saying the Internet is creating a bunch of self radicalized, home grown terrorists is a really serious issue. We have a right to be pissed off if we want to be. The United States government has no business calling it's citizens terrorists for voicing their opinions on the Internet.
I have read the entire bill, and I don't think it's good. They are setting up the commission to study what we are doing now. Next they are going to be acting on what the committee recommendations are. It's not like the government has ever come up with stupid plans to ostracize it's own citizens like putting people of Japanese decent in camps, or black listing communists so they couldn't get a job. No I'm not a communist, but I think someone has the right to their opinions even if I don't agree with them.
Everything this bill says is bad, but there's no plan to act . . . yet. That's right. That will come later. Why let them get their foot in the door for tyranny?
- alternativecatI, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2They are calling US Citizens terrorists. What terrorists? Saying the Internet is creating a bunch of self radicalized, home grown terrorists is a really serious issue. We have a right to be pissed off if we want to be. The United States government has no business calling it's citizens terrorists for voicing their opinions on the Internet.
- suspectzero, on 12/03/2007, -4/+3i'm still debating the issue,I mean if we stop this law than thats just postponing the innevadble.but if we sit back and let it burn,people at large might get scared and motivated to fight a all out revolution,Tare it all down.then start over with what we know works.
but on the other hand if this law stays.i could be kidnaped & my genatals mutilated for just writeing this naritive.- MikeFallopian, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1If bad spelling and grammar are made illegal, then that's very likely.
- Gemfinder, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1Guess that nixes his option to actually READ the bill...
- MikeFallopian, on 12/04/2007, -1/+1If bad spelling and grammar are made illegal, then that's very likely.
- stillasleep00, on 12/03/2007, -1/+5Just wrote Harry Reid...
- theangrybaby, on 12/03/2007, -2/+4Just sent an e-mail to my senator. Praying that this will be shot down if we raise enough attention to it
- DonTazeMeBro, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0I think I read an earlier comment saying it has been passed, and is awaiting further approval, or of that sort (I'm not American).
- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/03/2007, -6/+1It's ironic that the same people who deny the existence of concentration camps in Germany now claim there are concentration camps in America.
Also, this bizarre blurring of extreme left and extreme right should have more of you frightened by now. If this popular uprising ever does occur, millions will die. This blind zeal is DANGEROUS and the government should look into it.- DonTazeMeBro, on 12/04/2007, -1/+0What are you stupid? How is it ironic, and how come you are generalizing, and how come you are grouping people who deny the existence of concentration camps with those that claim there are camps in America; do you have any source of proof, aside from your uninformed mind? Oh, and enjoy being dugg under.
- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1"How is it ironic..."
It's ironic because one would think that people who deny the existence of concentration camps in Germany would deny the existence of concentration camps IN GENERAL.
"...and how come you are generalizing..."
I don't think I generalized. If you can point out exactly where and how I did, I'll be sure to look into that.
"...and how come you are grouping people who deny the existence of concentration camps with those that claim there are camps in America..."
Go to Rense.com and read their articles. Holocaust deniers promote the view that there are concentration camps in America, and the extreme left now promotes that same view.
Read the article again. Note the reference to "patriotism" and the linked article that mentions Alex Jones. These conspiracy theories have traditionally concerned extreme rightwing nuts. The code word "patriotism" used to mean stockpiling weapons in your mountain compound. It's only in the past year or two that extreme leftwing loonies have jumped on the bandwagon, using the same buzzwords. I literally did a double-take when I reached that "FOOTNOTE" at the end of the article that urged readers to "re-post this message on every Progressive/Liberal Blog in America."
The extreme right and extreme left are now saying the same thing.
Do you understand now?
This is exactly how it went down, by the way, in post-war Germany with the Nazi rise to power. That's no *****. That's not a political attack. I'm telling you these disaffected populist movements are dangerous, and when you have previously disparate political extremist groups saying we should put aside our differences and stand together and rise up against the government, man, you had better watch out, because they are going to commit atrocities when/if they do.
The sooner the leaders of this movement are rounded up, the better, for all of us.- textualtension, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0I don't know if I necessarily completely agree with you, but that may be the most well-argued point I've seen on this page. I found myself nodding along with the original article until I clicked a link that took me to a page that was, I ***** you not, arguing that the new season of 24 is subconsciously preparing us all to be interned for political dissent. That's when I knew: these are a bunch of crazy, desperate people who think they need something big to be against. You're absolutely right: we maybe should be a bit nervous.
- majebote, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0I dunno, just taking what you've read on one site certainly doesn't mean that you can group two very different angle into one class, or that the "government should look into." Is it not clear that a peaceful campaign is being emphasized? Sadly, however, I think that most Americans don't have much of an idea about many of the things going on around them that aren't on Fox or CNN, or maybe even TMZ, and I can't really see any sort of dangerous, violent, overzealous populist movement appearing out of nowhere because some diggers felt that this bill is infringing on certain rights, or could be misused to infringe on them. I'd say that and the crazies who deny the Holocaust ever happened are two different things, and it seems that you were catagorizing them together, more or less, because someone mentioned the possibility of concentration camps being in the US for sinister purposes. Going extreme in any direction, left, right, up, down, whatever, can lead to terrifying results, it's true, but I'm not seeing such frighting extremism exhibited here.
- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/05/2007, -1/+0Pay close attention to the comments next time you see an article like this. Try to keep a running count of how many people call for violence or sedition. See how many of their peers express disapproval of their comments.
Rense.com is not one website. It's a central hub for dozens of conspiracy theory websites. I suggested going there because it provides a quick overview of the "mainstream" kook worldview. (There are some people that even the kooks think are kooks--or disinformation agents.) The Holocaust denial, anti-Semitism, and white supremacy that shows up on Rense is just the tip of the iceberg. Try digging into the Stormfront.org forums and comparing what they say to the things you read on Progressive/Liberal blogs.
- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/05/2007, -1/+0Pay close attention to the comments next time you see an article like this. Try to keep a running count of how many people call for violence or sedition. See how many of their peers express disapproval of their comments.
- Melkolmr, on 12/03/2007, -0/+4There's really only one way to get through to a senator...
"If you vote in favor of this bill, you'll be looking for work in 2009."
Don't e-mail, that'll just get you a robot response. Call, fax, drive to their nearest office if you can.- SabrinaHeaven, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Like Anthony Ejarque?
- henro112358, on 12/03/2007, -1/+7Call these Six congressmen and thank them for having the balls to say NO in the first place. And if one of 'em is yours, kudos. Six out of hundreds...
Jeff Flake R AZ (202) 225-2635
Dana Rohrabacher R CA (202) 225-2415
Neil Abercrombie D HI (202) 225-2726
Jerry Costello D IL (202) 225-5661
Dennis Kucinich D OH (202) 225-5871
John Duncan Jr. R TN (202) 225-5435- ryuujinusa, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Yay Ohio!...not really, but Kucinich does have balls.
- tk0680, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2Yep, there's Dennis again ..
- 2trkpony, on 12/05/2007, -0/+1Cool thanks for that. I'll be on it tomorrow come lunch break @ work :-)
Those folks deserved to be thanked and commended. Acknowledge the positive. - phnx0221, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2I called Flake's office yesterday, and told the staffer that I wanted to thank my representative for being one of only six people to voice their sanity during that vote. I told him that the online community is up in arms about this bill. He laughed, and said they know. :) I also told him that there have been several people posting not only about writing, calling, and emailing their senators, but also to call and thank the reps who voted no in the first place.
All in all, it was a very pleasant experience. The staffer who answered was very happy that I called, and said he'd pass the message right away.
- batdan, on 12/04/2007, -4/+2Isn't the purpose of this bill to make a COMMITTEE to investigate the things in the bill? The definitions are for the purposes of the committee. Even if this bill passed and was exactly what you thought it was, it would struck down in court for being blatantly unconstitutional the second anyone tried to use it. Regular laws aren't constitutional amendments and don't automatically override the Bill of Rights.
- alternativecatI, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3The are calling us terrorists now, they will act on it later.
- 2trkpony, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2They want to come up with a 'battle plan' to better prepare themselves for any revolting, rising up from the restless serfs..That's what it's all about don't fool yourself. Too many of their lies, crimes & massive fraud are becoming exposed. They cannot control the Internet like they can their radio / TV propaganda networks. Criminal elite in power are concerned. They're becoming frightened. How dare the serfs know the Truth! Billions of us, yet so few of 'them'. They are taking every precaution to protect themselves. What better way than to 'legally' form some 'committee' to "study" homegrown terrorism. Only the "violent" "radical" stuff of course...with 'complete protection' of our Constitutional rights to boot!
{PsssssT..hey you!..over here - FOR SALE. Brooklyn Bridge at Night. One careful old lady owner, she only used it once a week for going to the grocery store! Perfect for new immigrants! Please send check or money order (sorry, no C.O.D.) British or Commonwealth purchasers, please make your cheque out to "Campaign Against Selling History", or "CASH", for short.
PayPal also accepted..}
- 2trkpony, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2They want to come up with a 'battle plan' to better prepare themselves for any revolting, rising up from the restless serfs..That's what it's all about don't fool yourself. Too many of their lies, crimes & massive fraud are becoming exposed. They cannot control the Internet like they can their radio / TV propaganda networks. Criminal elite in power are concerned. They're becoming frightened. How dare the serfs know the Truth! Billions of us, yet so few of 'them'. They are taking every precaution to protect themselves. What better way than to 'legally' form some 'committee' to "study" homegrown terrorism. Only the "violent" "radical" stuff of course...with 'complete protection' of our Constitutional rights to boot!
- alternativecatI, on 12/04/2007, -0/+3The are calling us terrorists now, they will act on it later.
- theneweddie, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2What about an on-line petition. I don't know how to set one up but would gladly sign.
- DonTazeMeBro, on 12/04/2007, -0/+0Good idea, someone should start one up (and not put any advertisements on it)
- phnx0221, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Alone, these will not accomplish much aside from a sense of solidarity and accomplishment by the click of a button. Most petitions that require your name and zip code are more effective, because by zip code, they're taken to be more legitimate. If you use these along with calling your senators, as well as writing them, it will be much more of an effective, combined effort.
Here is one that I found. You can find several more by searching on Google, or any other search engine. Hope this is what you were looking for:
http://www.petitiononline.com/19551959/petition.ht ...
http://www.petitiononline.com/S1959/petition.html
There are two. One is for S.1959, the other is for HR1955 and S.1959. Most blogs that came up on the google page (first page) linked to these two petitions.
- DonTazeMeBro, on 12/04/2007, -1/+4"When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then, Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church—there was nobody left to be concerned."
- phenry50BMG, on 12/04/2007, -1/+5Let 'em pass it. They don't give a ***** about what we think. They have fully realized that the average American is too busy trying to make their mortgage payment, put food on the table and hopefully not have to take a second or third job to make ends meet.
Government = force. It understands one thing and one thing only - force. It grows like cancer since it has unlimited resources thanks to what it steals from its people. It will kick you out of your home yesterday if you can't pay your property tax. It will put a lien on and steal everything you own if you can't pay whatever other tax. THEY DON'T ***** CARE ABOUT YOU! Wake the ***** up and realize the truth! They'll blow smoke up your ass and whisper sweet nothings in your ear while they're sizing up the spot on your back to stick the dagger in.
Within two years, there will be but one recourse to restore this Republic, NOT this democracy, it is enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence as well as the Bill of Rights. If you're willing to sacrifice all of your liberty based on a smoke and mirrors semblance of safety...we had a few founding fathers who said it way better than I ever could:
1)The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. (Sam Adams)
2) Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. (James Madison)
3) If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. (James Madison)
4) The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war. (James Madison)
My personal favorite (not counting everything James Madison and Patrick Henry have ever said)
5) If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your councel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget ye were our countrymen. (Samuel Adams)- majebote, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1I appreciate your point, but rather than throwing up your hands and saying "I give up," not even trying to make a dent, wouldn't it be more productive to at least try? It's like my old roommate. She had Democratic buttons and posters plastered all over her room and loved to talk about how Gore got screwed and An Inconvenient Truth, and then I asked her, "Did you vote?" "Naw, why bother when they don't even count it," she said, and apparently didn't vote in the last three elections of the last six years. I get it, I feel cheated too, but at least you have to go there and try it. *Someone* must be voting or else we'd have no results, right? I'm just as upset as any other informed person about some of the directions I see this country going in, but you can't just give up, or tell others who might have tried to write a letter, to inform themselves, to give up. It closes the door for at least learning about what's going on, if not making something happen.
- RomanticStorm, on 01/21/2008, -0/+2We're beyond 1776 and 1984. 1789 is an inevitability.
- citizenmatt, on 12/04/2007, -4/+2Hooray for hysteria and people who don't bother to read the bills!
- Takteek, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2I have a serious question. I would appreciate it if someone knowledgeable on the subject would take the time to answer it. Thank you in advance.
I just read the entire text of the bill ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ... ), and I also just read the various arguments against it. From the bill alone, my first impressions were positive. None of the negative implications of the bill even occurred to me until after I had read the counter-arguments. My question is this: Is it possible the the writers of the bill had good intentions, but simply were not specific enough when defining things like "Violent Radicalization", which would leave the law open to abuse --- OR --- Are our legislators really so evil that they purposely left the definitions vague, hoping to exploit this loophole in the future and treat non-violent dissenters as terrorists?- Takteek, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Digg broke the URL in my previous post, so hopefully this one will work:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill= ... - myborgdrone, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1What do they normally do with loopholes?
- flahavin, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Leave a way for themselves to bypass a law or a tax...while making sure everyone else without accountants and lawyers get around it?
- Takteek, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Digg broke the URL in my previous post, so hopefully this one will work:
- Cye3212, on 12/04/2007, -2/+2yeah yeah those of us who read know it's a friggen commission, but do you know what that commission does? they will be in charge of drawing up legislation that criminalizes protesting. in other words: once these guys are formed, its a step in the direction of a dictatorship.
- docholliday101, on 12/04/2007, -3/+3This is nothing more than a bill to establish a committee releasing a report in 18 months discussing measures to take against homegrown terrorism. While the wording is vague, this is just a Committee, no fangs, no power, just like every other committee that congress has thrown together over time. Now while the wording is worrisome, I've got to digg this sucker down due to inaccuracy. Please read the actual actions that the bill is taking as well as how it defines certain words!!! Don't just read someone elses opinion on what they think it means.
- 2trkpony, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2We don't need no more stink-in fascist government committee's. That's the least of our worries & problems facing this great nation.
What we DO need is:
1) Real leadership centered on respect & perseverance of the United States Constitution.
2) Impeachment proceedings. End the Iraq war fraud NOW.
3) Secure America's borders.
If there was actually a 'terrorist threat', as the govt wishes it's war-funding taxpayer consumer serfs to believe, then they would have locked down Americas borders into Mexico, Canada IMMEDIATELY. 7 years since 9/11, USA borders remain wide open, unprotected, unsecured. Gee some terrorist threat huh? Sounds real serious. But let's form a 'committee of uncritical yes-parrots to "study" 'homegrown terrorism"! What a ***** joke. It never ceases to amaze me how people continue to buy into this horse ***** without a single, critical thought of what's really doing down here.
Naomi Wolf puts it all into perspective:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0LvtQAQ6sc
- 2trkpony, on 12/05/2007, -0/+2We don't need no more stink-in fascist government committee's. That's the least of our worries & problems facing this great nation.
- Gemfinder, on 12/04/2007, -0/+1Hey, maybe they're all worried that a government worker will throw the resulting report at their heads. Not the Death of Free Speech™ but Death BY Free Speech™.
If this report's anything like the 9/11 Commission Report, I sure wouldn't want to be on the receiving side of that sucker's trajectory. -
Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
