Senate bill 1959,Americas fast track to Fascism

*re-reads definition*

Okay, I'm sorry, I just can't see that sentence being used to clamp down on civil disobedience, EVEN IF IT WERE IN A BILL THAT COULD BE USED TO PUNISH ANYONE. You may vote for bills before you vote against them (in Senate procedures with which most people would be unfamiliar), but you don't say "idealogically-based violence includes non-violent protest."

Anyway, since nobody has attempted to define speech as a part of force, you should be fine. Your entire fuss is because of somebody complaining about an "ambiguity" so weak that it would require someone to stand up and say "idealogically-based violence includes non-violent protest," and is in a bill only authorizing study of something. If it bothers you so much, call your senator and ask it to be changed to "violence or violent acts" rather than "force or violence" because that's clearly the bill's intent, what with statements like the following within the bill's text:
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.
Click to expand...
 
anyone actually read the bill text?
`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.

`In this subtitle:


`(2) 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.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- 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.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- 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.


`SEC. 899B. FINDINGS.

`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be used to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(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.

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

`(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

`(7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

`(8) 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 and lawful permanent residents

`(9) Certain governments, including the Government of the United Kingdom, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.
Click to expand...

the commision does not have any regulatory powers, and reports final findings in 18 months.

I don't really see the hype in the first link that takes away free speech, for dissenting opinions..

now after the final report, the actions that are taken based on that may be another issue. but that is outside the scope of this bill.

I'm with CDFT here, the only thing I see to be possibly concerned about is the lack of definition of the word force..in the context of the bill the intent is clear.
 
I got your speech control right here.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- 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.
Click to expand...

Let us assume that a hypothetical conversation is happenind amongst three friends who are on porch talking and drinking a beer. They are discussing what you would do with your fair share of a high dollar hold up of a local bank. These men would never actually do this. In fact, all men met at there CCW class and legally carry. Clear enough on that point?

The neighbor hears them and calls the authorities. All three men are taken into custody after they have pooped their pants. They have no previous records and have no reason to rob a bank. These are upstanding citizens. This information is gathered in less than 20 minutes.

Yet for some reason these men are interogated for 72 jours straight and finally released after a full battery of tests to determine wether or not they would actually do a robbery. This is acceptable force according to the feds.

Now make one of those honest men into you in a potentially hypothecial conversation. You have no intent of acting out a crime, yet you are the criminal for speaking words when taken out of context.

How do you feel about RECOMMENDATIONS for dealing with terrorism when the very words you speak may make your life a big hassel.

I know that you are going to say that the men should have not spoken the words aloud. They expected that their words were safe to say considering they weren't actually CONSPIRING to rob the bank. Exactly how does the 1A protect you if people decide that certain words in a specific order make a man a threat?

Any recommendations for ILLEGAL WORDS AND SENTENCES is as unconstitutional as all get out. Having a committee decide what is acceptable is tyranny. No questions asked.

Still not bothered by the attempt to make speech committee?
 
cold dead hands said:
Still not bothered by the attempt to make speech committee?
Click to expand...
Well, I guess the drive of what I'm saying is: I'll start being worried when they start trying...

I mean, even in your own example, those men were neither threatening nor planning nor using force on anyone. Even if they were, they would be doing it for personal gain rather than personal beliefs. Even if you modified the situation to "how would you go about evading the cops if you happened to shoot up a church?" the cop interrogation thing would happen without any new laws, because last I heard shooting up a church was still a crime, planning to commit crimes was a crime, and people jump to conclusions quickly already.

And then there's the whole part where your example is utterly absurd. The bill quite clearly and unambiguously states that the goal of the committee is to look and see how we can combat terrorism without stamping on people's rights. I mean, come on:
The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.
Click to expand...
Yep, that evil Congress is out to silence you! Quick, to the bunker!
 
The Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents
Click to expand...

This would be the same Dept. of Homeland Security that was crafted by the unconstitutional Patriot Act.

You have been out of the loop longer than me.
 
Okay, there's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said...

First off, just because a bill has bad parts in it doesn't mean everything in it is bad. Not that I think DHS was a good idea, but hey, Congress had to do something to pretend like they were doing a good job.

Second, I fail to see how previous legislation affects a new bill's explicit mandate not to do anything that would infringe on anyone's rights.

Third, if you are so worried that this commission will, rather than reporting on violent terrorists who want to destroy the West, opt to instead make a report about how best to combat the political influence of Christians and gun owners, then why are you wasting your time arguing with some weirdo from the Internet?

Seriously, as much as I love playing Tinfoil Troll with you, I think I'm just gonna sit this thread out from now on. No matter what I say, you won't believe me when I tell you that they aren't out to get you.
 
This is one of those hot-button topics, like abortion or the insane love of Japanese motorcycles, where few people are going to be swayed to the opposite viewpoint.

In other words, you either believe in (or fear) black helicopters or you don't.

I'll tell you why this is nonsense. This is a tar-baby to your individual state of mind because what it does to you. If you nitpick over every conspiracy theory there is, you'll tremble in your bed every night.

If the boogey-man isn't really there, roll over, get some shut-eye.

And if there really are black helicopters, then for pete's sake, get to the target range and practice so you can hit something.

I know you're going to roll your eyes, but give me a minute.

When I was a little boy, I was pretty much afraid of everything that walked, crawled or flew. I saw a old movie on Amazon pythons and checked my closet for huge snakes for over nine months.

Fortunately, I did read a book about Sonny Barger, and the real dangers and events he lived through.

The hook in the story is that Sonny is only 5' 7" in height, a size I surpassed in seventh grade. He wasn't afraid and to tell the truth, I realized I was a bit ashamed by my conduct.

The worst day in my life was facing a bully.

Now, many years later I read a piece by G. Gordon Liddy. And in this story he admitted that he, too, was a fraidy-cat as a child. It bothered him so much that he forced himself to face every fear--even the bizarre ones.

As a child, he had a tremendous fear of rats. His answer to the fear was tying himself down in dump. After several hours of having rats crawl all over him, the fear diminished.

You want to punch me in the nose? Well, bring your lunch, because I've been punched in the nose and the crunch of bones and the stream of blood no longer scare me. You got a big knife? I've got a sharper one, and I took classes on where to stick it. You got a gun? I've got a Tussey...

And so it goes. Address the things that scare you and deal with them once.

All kidding aside, I do believe that Homeland Security knows my name and where I live. They probably have several fleets of black helicopters.

So what. Worst case, they'll try to arrest me, perhaps my wife.

If we survive, they might interrogate me or throw me in a cell. Well, I've been interrogated and thrown in a cell. My guess is that Homeland Security has the money to afford some really cushy jails...

The problem here is not what is really out there, or what Hillary might force through Congress or what shakes out in The Supreme Court.

The issue is how you will react and adjust to tyrants--in all facets of your life.
 
Te Anau said:
Those who think this is a big joke and nothing to be concerned about trust waaaaay too much.
Click to expand...

Then what do you want us to do?

If there is a real, palpable threat to eneumerated rights and safety, then this action should be snuffed out immediately. What's my first target?

If there's nothing here but a fancey-schmancey debate, then why worry and cloud stable judgement?

I intend to vote. I intend to research how my elected officials vote--and why my political rivals criticize our moves.

I've hear nothing but venom coming from Randi Rhodes and her constant barking. Why hasn't the Trilateral Commission and sleek black helicopter gotten her? Heck, Al Franken wasn't much good as a commedian, and he's worse as a disc jockey.

Are we getting ourselves whipped up over nothing?
 
I've hear nothing but venom coming from Randi Rhodes and her constant barking. Why hasn't the Trilateral Commission and sleek black helicopter gotten her? Heck, Al Franken wasn't much good as a commedian, and he's worse as a disc jockey.

Are we getting ourselves whipped up over nothing?
Click to expand...

I don't see what liberal talk radio has to do with being concerned for our rights. You did make some good points in your post, but I wouldn't say whipped up is the right term.

Considering that the media & the other anti's keep trying to lump gun owners and terrorists into the same bunch, it's irresponsible to not at least keep an eye on what is being done in Congress. The anti's think if they couch their want list in the right language (terrorism) they can get what they want. Now I was never saying to get yourself into a twist about it, just keep an eye on it and be ready with letters of protest if necessary.

They have made it pretty clear they will try every strategy possible to get guns out of the hands of Mr. and Mrs. average American. When they say every, I take that to mean every. (Depends on what the meaning of "is" is, :barf: )

Now, your other points are well taken.

If the boogey-man isn't really there, roll over, get some shut-eye.

And if there really are black helicopters, then for pete's sake, get to the target range and practice so you can hit something.
Click to expand...

well said ;)
 
I mentioned Randi Rhodes not for her liberal point of view, but for her incessant, strident criticism of the President--and yet nothing happens to her.

My response wanted to convey that if people like Randi Rhodes can belittle, humiliate, chortle, derail, ostracize and constantly vex some very powerful men, why should we worry?

After all, the tin-hat club believes that every unholy power flows from Skull and Bones and The Trilateral Commission. Doesn't Bush43 have a skull crew ring? Yikes, why isn't a black helicopter strafing Randi Rhodes?

Did you know that at the height of The Mafia, there were less than 5,000 total members--mostly soldiers--and perhaps a few dozen made-men. And yet their long shadow terrified the entire nation.

TexasSeaRay and I yutz back and forth about bikers. Yikes, did you ever spend a weekend with a genuine bike club? Most of the time it's tequila, skirt chasing, hang-overs and TUMS. Merciful heavens, if a bunch of chrome junkies are the power behind the throne we should be able to curtail the revolution with paint-ball guns.

I don't believe in Freemason conspiracy theories, the Mayflower Families theory, college fraternity blood oathes, biker mafias, black helicopters and secret handshakes of any kind.

Case in point, all helicopters in Madison look black--while in the air. I drove down Hwy 51 one afternoon (on my mafia biker Harley) and noticed a whole slew of Blackhawks near the main fence. All of them were green.

Helicopters look black when back-lit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top