Senate bill 1959,Americas fast track to Fascism
- Thread starter Te Anau
- Start date
Martyn4802
New member
Makes me want to puke too....
That article needs wide distribution.
Martyn
That article needs wide distribution.
Martyn
Who introduced and cosponsored this crap?
H.R.1955
Title: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36](D) (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (14)
Latest Major Action: 10/24/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
House Reports: 110-384 Part 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] (R) - 8/1/2007
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] (R)ino- 9/18/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] (R) - 10/3/2007
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] (R) - 4/19/2007
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] (D) - 9/18/2007
H.R.1955
Title: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36](D) (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (14)
Latest Major Action: 10/24/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
House Reports: 110-384 Part 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(14), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Carney, Christopher P. [PA-10] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Dent, Charles W. [PA-15] (R) - 8/1/2007
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Green, Al [TX-9] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Lungren, Daniel E. [CA-3] (R)ino- 9/18/2007
Rep Perlmutter, Ed [CO-7] (D) - 9/18/2007
Rep Poe, Ted [TX-2] (R) - 10/3/2007
Rep Reichert, David G. [WA-8] (R) - 4/19/2007
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] (D) - 9/18/2007
Wow, can I borrow a tinfoil hat from you? If you're so worried about someone deliberately misinterpreting the intended meaning of "force," then ask your senator to introduce an amendment that suitable defines what constitutes "force." You don't need to run around acting like this is a plan by Democrats to allow Bush to clamp down on his opposition. Wait... 
Oh, wait, never mind, the bill is authorizing a committee that is meant to STUDY and MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT the problem, and that definition only applies to the law authorizing the committee. You see, Mr. Tinfoil Hat Blogger (is it a parody blog, or is he actually serious?) left out this little gem: "For purposes of this subtitle:"
No, they're not going to lock us all up in jail. Now, resume your panic.
Oh, wait, never mind, the bill is authorizing a committee that is meant to STUDY and MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT the problem, and that definition only applies to the law authorizing the committee. You see, Mr. Tinfoil Hat Blogger (is it a parody blog, or is he actually serious?) left out this little gem: "For purposes of this subtitle:"
No, they're not going to lock us all up in jail. Now, resume your panic.
Dangerous indeed. But let's start with a few clarifications.
First, the OP referenced S1959, a Senate bill that has made no progress or been voted on at all. It is a virtual carbon copy of HR1955 which has passed committee AND the House and is currently waiting for the Senate to return to session to be debated and potentially voted on. That said, BillCA has correctly referenced HR1955.
S.1959 text of legislation and floor speeches etc
HR.1955 text and floor speeches
The legislation proposes the establishment of a national commission to study the issues of domestic terrorism and extremism. It's not to pass criminal or civil penalties. This doesn't make it less dangerous because the findings of such commissions tend to become defacto mandates and thus pressure to pass laws based on their findings historically results in actual criminal and civil laws.
Their is an internationalism element to this as well as depending on 'University Based' thinking that make for perilous balance of addressing incitement vs. free speech. The United States is unique in the world in our expectation that our right to speak our minds publicly is unalienable. Should it come to the point that our City, State, or Federal government become so terribly corrupted or oppressive that a citizen revolt become necessary to re-establish liberty then the last thing we would want is for that to be considered terrorism.
The all too common loose logic and disregard of facts by people that hold leadership in the congress presents a far too slippery and untrustworthy environment to be risking those very people to define the line between the rights described by the first amendment and extremism. Let's remember their thinking on the second amendment as we approach this.
Extremism could simply be something you have no understanding of that you therefore don't agree with emotionally and someone else is working heartily to inform and communicate the message about.
First, the OP referenced S1959, a Senate bill that has made no progress or been voted on at all. It is a virtual carbon copy of HR1955 which has passed committee AND the House and is currently waiting for the Senate to return to session to be debated and potentially voted on. That said, BillCA has correctly referenced HR1955.
S.1959 text of legislation and floor speeches etc
HR.1955 text and floor speeches
The legislation proposes the establishment of a national commission to study the issues of domestic terrorism and extremism. It's not to pass criminal or civil penalties. This doesn't make it less dangerous because the findings of such commissions tend to become defacto mandates and thus pressure to pass laws based on their findings historically results in actual criminal and civil laws.
Their is an internationalism element to this as well as depending on 'University Based' thinking that make for perilous balance of addressing incitement vs. free speech. The United States is unique in the world in our expectation that our right to speak our minds publicly is unalienable. Should it come to the point that our City, State, or Federal government become so terribly corrupted or oppressive that a citizen revolt become necessary to re-establish liberty then the last thing we would want is for that to be considered terrorism.
The all too common loose logic and disregard of facts by people that hold leadership in the congress presents a far too slippery and untrustworthy environment to be risking those very people to define the line between the rights described by the first amendment and extremism. Let's remember their thinking on the second amendment as we approach this.
Extremism could simply be something you have no understanding of that you therefore don't agree with emotionally and someone else is working heartily to inform and communicate the message about.
44capnball
New member
I dont think anybody needs an explanation of how this bill could target 2A supporters. Even talking about that reason why the 2A exists could make you a terrorist. Because we all know how Thomas Jefferson was such an evil terrorist. Meanwhile the left can rattle on all they want about safety and 'for the children' as they strangle whats left of American freedom and dignity. I dont know about you but I think thats pretty Wrong.
The left and now even some of the right have been trying to confuse gun ownership with the terror threat. The media have been helping them. They are a little too eager about it. There are many examples but I remember a story not long ago in a NY paper. It was discussed on glock talk. Some crazy fool bought an inline muzzleloader & wandered onto his college campus. The paper made sure to say it was a terror scare. Hmph, it would have been more scary if he had knives instead.
Because we all know how Thomas Jefferson was such an evil terrorist. Meanwhile the left can rattle on all they want about safety and 'for the children' as they strangle whats left of American freedom and dignity. I dont know about you but I think thats pretty Wrong. The left and now even some of the right have been trying to confuse gun ownership with the terror threat. The media have been helping them. They are a little too eager about it. There are many examples but I remember a story not long ago in a NY paper. It was discussed on glock talk. Some crazy fool bought an inline muzzleloader & wandered onto his college campus. The paper made sure to say it was a terror scare. Hmph, it would have been more scary if he had knives instead.
The Tourist
Moderator
Pass the tin-foil, there will be lots of folks who need hats.
It is already a felony to espouse danger to the President. The dealer who built my AR-15 made one joke, and spent eight fun-filled hours with The Secret Service, and that was a decade ago.
As I have always said, everyone of us can be arrested at any time for any crime. And in my life I've done, said, and eaten enough suspicious items so that even the Boy Scouts could swear out a warrant for my arrest.
Here's the deal. If they would have wanted you, you'd already be in custody.
Is this the way you want to live--shutters drawn, jumping at you own shadow, fearful of every badge, sweating out every conspiracy theory?
What do you think The Second actually defines? It enumerates our rights against tyranny. We need to repeat that occasionally.
It is already a felony to espouse danger to the President. The dealer who built my AR-15 made one joke, and spent eight fun-filled hours with The Secret Service, and that was a decade ago.
As I have always said, everyone of us can be arrested at any time for any crime. And in my life I've done, said, and eaten enough suspicious items so that even the Boy Scouts could swear out a warrant for my arrest.
Here's the deal. If they would have wanted you, you'd already be in custody.
Is this the way you want to live--shutters drawn, jumping at you own shadow, fearful of every badge, sweating out every conspiracy theory?
What do you think The Second actually defines? It enumerates our rights against tyranny. We need to repeat that occasionally.
44capnball
New member
They dont need to lock us all up in jail. There just has to be one or two who are made examples of, every so often. Everybody else including me and you will stay in line. No need for panic.
A man who's got a mortgage, responsibility to wife & kids, salary that comes in by direct deposit, electronic purchase records, electronic medical records. He'll be real easy to find when they finally get around to coming for him. They don't even need to. They'll just pick him up on a traffic stop when they run his ID. People have let the media shape their opinions for so long, he wont find much help.
Last I checked there wasn't a real lot of enthusiasm in government circles for the anti tyranny parts of the Constitution. I'm guessing what you speak of is already considered terrorism. I expect there wouldnt be much media support for such an event. Right or no right, you would have the media asking why you didnt just lay down in front of tanks and let them run over you.
When the house or senate are discussing a bill to explore 'homegrown terrorism' then 2A supporters should be watching that real close, given the past record of some of these senators.
How are they going to make an example out of someone? What legal powers does this comission have to silence you? I guess theoretically they could badger you by sending you a summons to come testify, and then include a mean-spirited footnote in their report based on a deliberate misquotation of you, but that would just be silly.
cold dead hands
Moderator
CDFT,
I think you don't seem to comprehend that it would be the first step in officially flushing the BoR. Even giving a committee the power to make recomendations on how to further erode your 1A rights is bad juju. Even daring that such a committee be formed is very very bad.
I don't understand... Isn't this whole fuss about the potential for abusing the term "force"? I guess I could understand the concern if they could use the loophole of having a potentially ambiguous definition to hassle people with jail time before any law passed was overturned, but these guys are just studying something. We don't need an eight page definition regarding what is and is not use of force.
It's like... I give you a badge, and tell you to go arrest anyone engaged in domestic violence. I may want to be more specific. If I give you a badge and tell you to study domestic violence, I can have a bit more leeway in defining domestic violence and let you use common sense because you're not going to do anything to anybody.
I dunno. Too much faith in my fellow human beings? It's not like the intent of the committee is ambiguous in any way if you read the findings section.
It's like... I give you a badge, and tell you to go arrest anyone engaged in domestic violence. I may want to be more specific. If I give you a badge and tell you to study domestic violence, I can have a bit more leeway in defining domestic violence and let you use common sense because you're not going to do anything to anybody.
I dunno. Too much faith in my fellow human beings? It's not like the intent of the committee is ambiguous in any way if you read the findings section.
The Tourist
Moderator
While there are some very serious elements to this debate, parts of it tickle me.
If I was to start a threat entitled, "Woe is me!" in which I document the travails of a customized Harley and the legal hassles I had with law enforcement, many of you would laugh outright. Most of you would respond with something like, "Quitcherbitchin" and a few hotheads would insist I had it coming.
If I proffered that a helmet law was "the nose of the camel," some of you would repeat the old urban legend that there is a "biker brain ward" someplace in a mythical hospital that soaks up the insurance money of innocent people.
Well, here's my turn to laugh.
There aren't any black helicopters interested in the porn you buy from Borders Book Store.
I doubt if a grand jury would convene if I tore that "Kill 'Em All" T-shirt off your back and gave it to The Secret Service.
If the "One World Order" was out for Iron Revenge you wouldn't find AR-15 parts on eBay.
In fact, there would probably be sub-dermal GPS skin tags hidden in every roll of tin-foil suitable for making hats.
Nobody cares about you. Even if you were mindless camp follower, you'd be in custody. If you were a semi-serious threat, you'd be dead. If you were truly a dangerous killer you'd be in a Rambo movie.
How many of you TFL members have ever been swept up by Homeland Security? Anal probes, anybody?
If I was to start a threat entitled, "Woe is me!" in which I document the travails of a customized Harley and the legal hassles I had with law enforcement, many of you would laugh outright. Most of you would respond with something like, "Quitcherbitchin" and a few hotheads would insist I had it coming.
If I proffered that a helmet law was "the nose of the camel," some of you would repeat the old urban legend that there is a "biker brain ward" someplace in a mythical hospital that soaks up the insurance money of innocent people.
Well, here's my turn to laugh.
There aren't any black helicopters interested in the porn you buy from Borders Book Store.
I doubt if a grand jury would convene if I tore that "Kill 'Em All" T-shirt off your back and gave it to The Secret Service.
If the "One World Order" was out for Iron Revenge you wouldn't find AR-15 parts on eBay.
In fact, there would probably be sub-dermal GPS skin tags hidden in every roll of tin-foil suitable for making hats.
Nobody cares about you. Even if you were mindless camp follower, you'd be in custody. If you were a semi-serious threat, you'd be dead. If you were truly a dangerous killer you'd be in a Rambo movie.
How many of you TFL members have ever been swept up by Homeland Security? Anal probes, anybody?
cold dead hands
Moderator
So it would seem, but have you seen the FBI's little single page pamphlet that went out to virtually LEO in the nation. It discribes what kind of person a terrorist is. By all definitions in that thing I should have alerted them to the existence of myself just so they can monitor my potential for terrorism.
You might want to talk to some Japanese type folks who were around during WWII. They can tell you all about Homeland Security.
The Tourist
Moderator
cold dead hands said:
That's a very good example.
You darn near have to declare war on the USA, funding your folly with waves of battleships, flat-tops and fighter planes before our police round up a few thousand "maybe" sympathizers.
But be fair. I'd have rather been Japanese and lived in California, than been Jewish and lived in Berlin.
In my area, Dane County is about the average size of the county or parish where you live.
Police are my clients, two have been my neighbors. One beat officer knew me by my first name in my former Maher Avenue apartment when I lived in Madison, proper. I am known by a Special Agent of the FBI. I am registered on our local gang task force. I rode with the Blue Knights. I have a known firearms collection and big mouth. Cops could find me in seconds.
If I am not in custody by some super-secret, Euro-funded, Trilateral Commision bred, bully-boys of The State, then you have nothing to worry about.
And if they come for you in a blazing reinactment of Waco, buzzing higher than a ginger-snap cookie laced with crack cocaine, the worst that can happen is that you'll die in your home doorway amid a spent pile of brass, a snarl on your lips and an empty pistol.
Relax guys.
http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html
Any time you attempt to delcare speech as a part of "force" with regards to terroristic activities, you're treading on a very thin line.
Any time you declare that the mere mention of "force" to promulgate political change is equivilant to "terrorism" you're treading that thin line.
Which of these might a government bureaucrat consider a "terrorist threat"?
"If the president doesn't pull out of Iraq, we'll shut the country down with our protests!"
"Schumer's at it again with this anti-gun bill. Can't someone just shove him in front of a bus?"
"We'll block the doors of government, block roads and stop trains to make them pay attention.
"If the Feds ever start kicking in your door, remember they have body armor, so shoot 'em in the head."
If you put on your bureaucrat's hat (which switches off 70% of your brain cells) and look at each of the above statements, you may conclude any one or more of them could be considered "terroristic" threats. Each contains a reference to using some kind of force to produce a certain outcome.
In fact, none of them are.
The first one is a re-worded Vietnam era statement by antiwar activists. So is the 3rd statement. The Schumer statement was originally directed at Di-Fi during her term as S.F. Mayor and deemed free speech by a court. The last statement was from G. Gordon Liddy's radio show in the 90's talking about excessive gun control.
Any time you declare that the mere mention of "force" to promulgate political change is equivilant to "terrorism" you're treading that thin line.
Which of these might a government bureaucrat consider a "terrorist threat"?
"If the president doesn't pull out of Iraq, we'll shut the country down with our protests!"
"Schumer's at it again with this anti-gun bill. Can't someone just shove him in front of a bus?"
"We'll block the doors of government, block roads and stop trains to make them pay attention.
"If the Feds ever start kicking in your door, remember they have body armor, so shoot 'em in the head."
If you put on your bureaucrat's hat (which switches off 70% of your brain cells) and look at each of the above statements, you may conclude any one or more of them could be considered "terroristic" threats. Each contains a reference to using some kind of force to produce a certain outcome.
In fact, none of them are.
The first one is a re-worded Vietnam era statement by antiwar activists. So is the 3rd statement. The Schumer statement was originally directed at Di-Fi during her term as S.F. Mayor and deemed free speech by a court. The last statement was from G. Gordon Liddy's radio show in the 90's talking about excessive gun control.