Turk

http://www.newstarget.com/022465.html


What was the greatest failure of 2007? President Bush's "surge" in Iraq? The decline in the value of the US dollar? Subprime mortgages? No. The greatest failure of 2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.

The American people's attempt in November 2006 to rein in a rogue government, which has committed the US to costly military adventures while running roughshod over the US Constitution, failed. Replacing Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate has made no difference.

The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic Party is as determined as the assault by the Republicans. On October 23, 2007, the House passed a bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and assembly...

Stokes

Turk, have you read the bill? This came up in another thread a while ago. Here is a summary of the bill:

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.

So it is basically providing funding and organization to study the causes of homegrown terrorism. There is NOTHING about taking action against Americans in this bill. Read the full text here, it is nothing dangerous unless you are afraid of a committee set up to discuss how best to prevent homegrown terror.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h110-1955

FreeTedWilliams

The Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from passing any law that overturns constitutionally guaranteed rights, that kinda shoots a hole in your arguement.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...55&tab=summary

This is FROM THE TEXT OF THE LEGISLATION:
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.

__________________
The Jets look like a Super Bowl contender right now about as much as Rosie O’Donnell looks like a threat for the Miss America crown. -NY Post 12/19/2011


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PressCoverage

are we talking about HR 1955, because if so, FTW, you need to read all of it a bit closer... it's the typically vaguely worded thought crimes bill that passed 403-6 in Congress...

the Senate version, HR 1959, is due soon... but i can't find when it's up for vote... life in America will officially change for the worst if/when that passes...

Stokes

PC what part of 1955 is troubling to you? (I think I asked you this very question in another thread, but if you answered it I forget what the answer was! Sorry to make you repeat yourself if you answered already!)

PressCoverage

c'mon, Stokes... it provides a conveniently vague, and subjective interpretation of dissident speech here at home so that anyone speaking out against our war-loving administrations can be made to disappear or jailed... a profound violation of the first amendment of the US Constitution... the abuses opened up by an Orwellian piece of legislation like this are transparent to anyone who reads it ... hopefully, our Senators will do a better job actually reading this one than they did regarding the Patriot Act...

no where in the bill does it specifically offer the full, unambiguous definition of "Homegrown" terrorism... it dances around the definition, to where even anti-Bush rants on a football message board can be loosely grouped into "ideologically based violence"... that's a red flag, right there on the surface... perhaps obedient chickenhawks are comfortable leaving that distinction to be made by the Bush League, or the next corporate administration to follow, but I am not...

example:

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 US or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the U.S. government, the civilian population of the U.S., or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

force OR violence? if force isn't violent, what IS force then, according to our government? how convenient... why isn't it just stated as "violence" then?

here's the dictionary definition of the noun "force"... yeah, 36 of them... including:

4. power to influence, affect, or control; efficacious power: the force of circumstances; a force for law and order.
6. persuasive power; power to convince: They felt the force of his arguments.
7. mental or moral strength: force of character.

further:

"intimidate or coerce... the civilian population?" ... WHAT??? ... are you F'ing kidding me?... people can go to jail for that? for merely ranting about the ills of this criminal administration? what a F'ing joke...

and please don't respond with the standard, "i'm sure they didn't mean..." prefix... because just like the Patriot Act, they damn sure DID mean...

there are numerous ambiguous definitions and parameters put forth in this irresponsible bill...

there is no prevalent homegrown terror threat, and they know it... besides the innocuous Amy Goodman's and Sean Penn's and Rosie O'Donnell's and Bill Maher's of the world whom they wanna silence with the threat of a jail cell... or worse, a trip to Egypt...

at the very, very least, this crap needs to be re-written with the clear, painfully lawyerish literature that does not leave itself open to convenient, all-encompassing definition that makes the neocons, and people on this board who support them, grin...

Stokes

I don't see anything that grants anyone power to detain or jail anyone in this bill. This bill is concerned with setting up funding, a commission, and a think tank to figure out how homegrown terrorism is best prevented. There are no provisions here for actual action against people the government would consider dangerous. Not that I found reading it anyway. I appreciate your concern that it could pave the way for rights violations, but I don't see that potential from this particular piece of legislation. It is entirely possible that I'm missing something in reading it though. What part would give any legal ability to act, separate from the power the government already has?

And come on, how 'bout just like a week for Rosie in Egypt, I settle for even just a long weekend, come on, please????

PressCoverage

alright... a week for rosie...

Stokes

Now you're talking! Ship her fat ass over there, and in the spirit of compromise we'll send Rush for a week with her!

PressCoverage

a month for Rush, just on general principle, and we have a deal...