Only six members of Congress voted against fascism. How the hell did they get this past us?

On Tuesday Congress betrayed the American people. They passed H.R. 1955: The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 by a vote of 404-6. What is HR 1955? Well lets just look at the text:



Alright stop right there. Violent radicalization? They are going against "extremist belief systems" without defining what an extremist belief system is. Do you have any doubt that the White House and members of this commission just might consider many of the progressive blogs and message boards to be extremist belief systems? Well if you have any doubts read a bit further into the resolution:



Yes, they come straight out and say it. The internet is facilitating violent radicalization and "homegrown terrorism". You may try and emphasize that key word "violent". We are not promoting violence so what do we have to fear right? Well ask yourself just what is violence, and who defines what it is? Maybe we can just look further into the text of the bill to clear that up:



So instead of defining violence for us they actually greatly broaden the definition to include force. What is force? Now you are getting into really broad territory. If you gather petition signatures for a voter initiative aren't you trying to force that measure onto the ballot? Now maybe they won't take it that far, but you could theoretically expand the definition that far and the fact that they have so much latitude in labeling something as "ideologically based violence" should frighten us all.

What the hell is wrong with our Congress when only six representatives will vote against such a horrendous piece of legislation? This is not the America I learned about in school.

I don't think they read it. Maybe the ones who voted against it actually read it or had an aide summarize it to them. Either that or we are really done for.

And you can see how bad it is from the very beginning.

was. Look at how the one guy that voted no to the Iraq war and stated that there was no evidence and it was about oil, voted on hr 1955 compared to the GOP and DEMs. He has been making the right calls for US, the American people all along including back in 2002 and why do we still ignore him?


http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000336/


If America would wake up or HELL, if the members of DU would wake up and see that Dennis Kucinich is the candidate that supports us, the people. Maybe we could pass the word in time to create a better future for our children but from what I see around here on DU, it just mimics what I see on the MSM. Dennis Kucinich is the one we should be behind, period!

I am so tired of seeing DU members complain about all the things that our government is doing against us because the same people complaining support candidates that aren't standing up for us? If you don't support a candidate that is actually speaking out for us then shut the fuck up and admit you are a part of the AmeriKan Sheeple of the divided States.

Why do so many ignore the facts of 2002 and so on, why? I keep seeing this movement that thinks that only the Republicans are bad and ALL the democrats are good? Look at the reality of what is happening, not what the MSM tells you. We have an important vote coming up and if we once again fuck this one up, I don't think America will ever survive. It will become the AmeriKa that the wealthy fucks enjoy now!

To bad he's short.

The Iraq quagmire. Kucinich AND Ron Paul. So at least one from each side. Paul voted against the patriot act too. As did Kucinich I believe. I have wild fantasies of a Kucinich/Paul ticket. They are such very opposing views but agree on so much. They believe in America, free press and free speech.
Seems rare these days.

My candidate of choice for now though happens to be Edwards. But I would adore Kucinich up there too!!

Cheers
Sandy

He had some special guests to help him digest Bill Maher throwing out the
9/11 Truthers on the Bill Maher show.

They started talking about how bad it ws that the Internet was showing so many websites questioning
9/11. And that if you counted them, the sites questioning 9/11 outnumbered the more traditional 9/11 sites.

BUt now they can relax. The power is set in legislation and coming to a computer close to you - there will be no more internet as we know it.

oh you'll still be able to go to www.kelloggcereal.com. or whatever other corporate trading site you want.

But free discussion is on its way out.

Or you will be shot on the spot!!!

:sarcasm:

A lot of this stuff really makes you wonder if Bush & Co., will really be willing to step down when his time comes...

n/t

which is defined I guess by whomever is in power.

"There is nothing more dangerous to our constitutional form of government than a ruthless and tyrannical executive exerting its power over a spineless and compliant legislative branch. Wake up, Congress!"

http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/

for the count..I wonder who voted against it?

Abercrombie
Costello
Duncan
Flake
Kucinich
Rohrabacher

bunch! Abercombie(D) is from Hawaii and that's where I'm going back to in 3 years so that makes me feel good.

Jerry Costello(D) from Illinois?

Rohrabacher(R) and Flake(R) Duncan(R)?? Confusing.

Good ol' Kucinich!

they are afraid Blackwater's web sites could be taken down? They are definitely violent.

At least they got their vote in so no one can say they didn't try their damnest for the bilgewater boys.

We really are no longer a democracy. I suspect Tuesday was the end of what little remained of it. That any Democrat would have voted for this is just appalling. Republicans? Democrats? There is no such thing. There is only the Nazi Party. And six patriots.

violent revolution. Or at the the very least Talking about one. This is sick, sick, sick!

Cheers
Sandy

So now we outlaw "thought crimes"? Murder isn't enough, the perp was having "bad thoughts" too?

Between hate crime laws and this vulgar piece of legislation that runs roughshod over the constitution. characterizing hate crime laws as "thought crime" is a rediculous oversimplification. Until Bush takes away THAT right, we have the right in this country to THINK whatever we want. Neo-Nazis can comfortably walk through our nations' capital, spewing hatred and intolerence. NAMBLA can legally operate they're website because they carefully word they're posts and articles that "merely" suggest that sexual intercourse between a grown man and a child is ok in principle, and never directly reference committing said act themselves or intention to do so. I GARANTEE you EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of NAMBLA or the KKK, or the Aryan Nations, etc., has "bad thoughts." They are VERY free to express them. Hate crime laws are there for a few simple reasons, a hate crime is not just against an individual but perpetrated as a public expression to a mass of people that they are not welcome or safe. Unlike a random altercation, someone who commits a hate crime will ALMOST INEVITABLY repeat this behavior whenever possible, this is never an isolated incident. Lastly, these harsher sentences act as a deterrant to the crimes themselves as they prevent them from occuring by, first, making perpetrators have to way the heavier risk of punishment if they commit such an act, and secondly by incarcerating these dangerous, predatory individuals for longer periods so they have less oppertunities to brutalize minority groups who are FAR MORE LIKELY to become victims than the rest of us.

against the public. How repulsive and how stupid.

because there are a few good people in the House and most of the good ones voted for this - here is the roll call

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll993.xml

It doesn't take long to see what it is saying. It is an extremely frightening bill, and I am appalled that all of these supposedly progressive members of Congress voted for it.

and I do not like what I have read so far and I DON'T GET IT....although Dennis is fabulous he is not the only progressive in the House of Representatives....

and most of the Dems in Congress want to have that power for themselves. I wouldn't expect any major changes in any of the power grabs by W if any of the Dems other than Dennis or Mike get elected.

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
Choose Peace!

Your entire argument hinges around the definition of violence, and no court has ever held "force" in such a context to mean anything but physical force.

Is a black man sitting at a stool in a whites only restaurant and refusing to leave an act of physical force? And it does not even say you have to use force only threaten to use it. What constitutes a threat? The language is extremely broad.

Physical violence and lawful compulsion. The latter does not apply when we are referring to the realm of "ideologically based violence." The former does.

"Threat of force" would be threat of violence, of course. If I point a gun at you, and say "give me your wallet or I shoot you," that is a violent crime, even though I did not actually harm you. I have robbed you and assaulted you with a deadly weapon.

A threat is an utterance intended to intimidate, often proposing violence will be done, and often conditional on compliance with a demand. Threat of force is any speech or action intended to result in a person believing that they are in physical danger. These are all common terms used in law, and no vaguer than any other law.

I have seen too many cases of authorities charging there was violence when none existed. This is especially true in the context of political protests.

Real-world meanings of terms have little to do with legal meanings, and nearly all words have a legal history often stretching back hundreds of years. Police often charge violence when no violence occurred, but that is not the fault of the law; that is the fault of the police. If no violence actually occurred, the court should find in favor of you. If it does not, than there has been a systematic error, but it is not the fault of a vague law, it is the fault of a crooked cop and an incompetent court incorrectly applying the law.

What I see is very broadly defined language. When they are talking about "extremist" ideologies on the internet "threatening" force I think of all of the ways they could justify all kinds of crap based off some sarcastic post somewhere.

But as far as the second point goes, well, I mean, if you're on the Internet saying you're going to kill the President or something, that's a crime and you're going to get the Secret Service on your ass as it is.

You are taking a very extreme example, and we wouldn't need a new Congressional act to stop threats on the pResident. It is already something that is taken very seriously. The word force covers a LOT more than death threats to public officials and you know it.

Why don't we look at my earlier example, would it be an act of physical force for a black to sit in a whites only restaurant and refuse to leave? Yes I know I am using an example from a time long ago, but the point is that many of the most respected civil rights leaders in our nations history could have been accused of using force.

at all, correct? (something non violent like Bush is the Worst President Ever) Cause that would be free speech, and that's protected.

You seem to have alot more faith in what's left of the system that I do. And personally, I hope that I'm totally wrong and that you are absolutely 100% right. But sadly, there have been way too many laws passed that allow the government to lock me up for disagreeing

The Anti-Federalists had it right.



Now that Posse Comitatus is gone, and a mercenary army is at the control of the State Department, and this legislation is passed, I guess we will have to use sarcasm against a tyrannical government to preserve our individual rights (extremist belief system), lest we be labeled "homegrown terrorists."

Sponsored by Jane Harman, no less.

Per the military commissions act of 2006 -- along with the patriot acts and various executive orders and presidential directives -- "they" can do whatever the hell they want with anybody they choose to do it to, and there isn't a damn thing -- other than evacuating the country before the whip comes down -- you or I can do about it.

"They" don't have to prove you have violent intent, or anything else for that matter. If they decide to play the "terrorist" card, the onus is now on you to prove your innocence, which is damn hard to do when you don't know the charges and have no right to a lawyer or public trial.

There are hundreds of people, possibly thousands, rotting and being tortured in Gitmo and elsewhere in the American gulag who have no idea what they're actually charged with, except for some vague bullshit about "unlawful combatants" or another brand new crime invented by this foul administration.

You write as if you fail to grasp that you no longer live in a democratic republic based on Constitutional law and about 220 years of legal precedent. There is no law; there is no habeas; there is no right to counsel; there is no right to privacy; there is no right to speak your mind; there is no prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

There is only the whim and caprice of the "justice" department, and I suggest that's not an entirely trustworthy entity these days.

But that's OK, since war is peace, freedom is slavery and history is rewritten every time the previous lie becomes "inoperative."

Not being a lawyer, I'm completely willing to be full of shit on this topic, btw -- or any other. Just tell me where I'm wrong.


wp

That about sums it up. Went to school in the fifty's when we believed in our freedoms, marched for civil rights, free speech, peace. The rulers never really wanted us to put all our rights into play. They know whats better for them then we do, after all it's almost all theirs anyway. What are they teaching in school now.

I just read the bill. Nowhere in there does it establish any criminal penalties or say that anything that falls within the definitions violate any criminal code of the US. What it does do is establish a commission to study things that the "commission" decides falls within those definitions and report back to congress those findings every 6 months with a final report due in 18 months. This bill does not "in essence" create thought crimes, but it does set up a commission to study them. It is not "the legislation" to implement them but it does give us an idea of their mindset and what is in store for the future. In other words, we have 18 months to vote these butt-clowns out of office. Get busy. Thanks, Paul


http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50696

It is a commission set up with the intent of preventing whatever they consider to be "extremist" views, and it sends a chilling message to all of us.

It also explains the 404 to 6 vote.

NATIONAL ID is also that far away. Ah so we can be RF tagged according to the report? Conspiracy? Maybe.

Who is served by this study group? What is the purpose of it? To identify what? Vague ideologies or individuals and groups that the study group determines may be planning a terrorist attack?

It reminds one of the McCarthy era. Which shouldn't surprise anyone since many of the tactics of the Bush Administration mirror the tactics of McCarthy.

Dana Rohrabacher is not a Democrat. He is an Orange County Republican committed to "conservative" values. But he also believes in the Constitution and the rule of law as defined by the Constitution. He alone challenged the Bush Administration over immigration reform with regard to prosecuting employers instead of targeting the immigrants and angered many of his fellow Republicans when he did so.

He voted against this. That in itself probably says quite a bit about the intent of the legislation.

On the eve of the 2008 election. I am surprised it is the left not the right kicking up dust. This is a Congressional Bill authorizing a Congressional committee, right? The FBI will continue doing its politically motivated persecutions of Dems no matter what Congress does. If Congress comes up with a list of the real threats to America's security before next fall, it will be mostly home grown right wingers on the list, maybe lots of GOP donors.

Maybe all of activists will show up. Doubtfull... see my posts below.

How would our founders fare under this law? Oh wait! -- that is what they fought against!

--IMM

at one of those radical sites. I was wondering how long it would take to show up here.

This is nothing unexpected for some of us, they had to show their busted hand before stealing the pot.

Will it stand is the only real question now isn't it?

on the head, back, ass, (fill in the blank), looking for REC's, etc, and zzoooo'p, there goes another one :thumbsdown:

they can and are getting away with whatever the fuck they want! :grr:

Looks like that's what this is all about. I guess they hadn't counted on word getting around on the internets. Maybe they really are incompetent!

A few others too maybe but the ones who are to do the dirty work aren't.
I agree about the not counting on the net part though. Just think. Without the internet, questioning 911 truth wouldn't get any exposure at all.

There is funding for some research plus it prohibits the Homeland Security Dept from violating the constitution, etc. A good thing, but it does not prohibit the fascists from violating the rights of all "persons," as the Constitution is worded.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955&tab=summary
"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."

I mean we are on the net, our IP address have already been logged, our comments are set in stone, and now we can be accused of "radicalism" because of our stated oppinion.

I mean really, I think there needs to be some sort of course, diploma, certification on legislation. Half of them don't have a clue!

Some of the above comments sound like the happy Jews to put on arm bands. Really Have you done your research here or are you neocons on our site? Here is the homeland link:

<http://homeland.house.gov/legislation/index.asp?ID=287&SubSection=0&Issue=0&DocumentType=0&PublishDate=0>

It has made a witch hunt committee. The chairman alludes to a sense of "well being" and to "protect civil rights and liberties of U.S. Citizens." Doesn't that sound familiar? Isn't that why we went to Iraq, want to war with Iran? They are looking for home grown terrorism. They are looking for radicals and the cause of radicals. Following the completion of this bill there will be a set up to expand the study. The hour is late!

If by some chance, the study members are part of a greater good, for the people and by the people they will discover the horrors being unleashed by the neocons, minute men, The Legion for Christ, CNP, ect.

I fear my optimism has left my passport in my back pocket. Coupled with the TSA lack of flights out bound, and a national identity, this country as we have loved it are over. Nixon had powers, but not like this.

We the people of the united states must recognize freedom from tyranny and oppression. Resolutions like this fall right into the hands of those who originally inspired the fear of terrorism.

Thanks for the post

See the speech by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee on this page:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=speeches&bill=h110-1955

Is it true that a study group is the sole purpose of the resolution? I doubt it. TSA and home land security keep adding powers. They are the new form of government we are supposed to need. Remember the bill refers to the current state of the constitution, not the "imaginary" real one our founding fathers wrote (last section).

And who is on the committee:

(c) Composition of Commission- The Commission shall be composed of 10 members appointed for the life of the Commission, of whom--
`(1) one member shall be appointed by the President from among officers or employees of the executive branch and private citizens of the United States;
`(2) one member shall be appointed by the Secretary;
`(3) one member shall be appointed by the majority leader of the Senate;
`(4) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the Senate;
`(5) one member shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
`(6) one member shall be appointed by the minority leader of the House of Representatives;
`(7) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;
`(8) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives;
`(9) one member shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; and
`(10) one member shall be appointed by the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate.

If I trusted our Congress I might think this Resolution would go toward the real problems facing America. Despite the fact that it is supposed to be w/o racial social bias etc. Islam studies is a specific qualification (not Religion Interactions). Read the text its there.

Contracting is permitted with in the commission to "carry out it's duties.

On information: "The Committee and its staff shall receive, handle, store, and disseminate information in a manner consistent with the operative statutes, regulations, and Executive orders" They will then go on to make reports.

IN SHORT: The wiretapping law has been expanded to more branches of government. This "new branch" is only subject to congressional authority... OH its not in the resolution.

US enemies domestic and foreign.

This installed criminal administration is fascist and it's supporters are our domestic enemies. They have their privatized things-we are the people.

ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE, LIKE OUR CONSTITUTION DEFINES.

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST-IMPEACH CHENEY NOW!

On October 23rd, the House passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, H.R. 1955. This bill is designed to take steps to better understand violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in order to prevent them.

Recent incidents highlight that homegrown terrorism is a threat here in the United States. There have been recent incidents here in the United States that point out that homegrown terrorism is a concern – ranging from the arrest in Georgia of Christopher Riendeau, who had a large arsenal of firearms and bomb-making materials and much Nazi paraphernalia, to a potential al Qaeda-inspired cell in New Jersey.

For example, in early June, five people were indicted for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey with automatic weapons. On June 5, Mohamed Shnewer, a U.S. citizen and Philadelphia cabdriver, and four other men were indicted by a federal grand jury in New Jersey for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades, vowing in taped conversations “to kill as many soldiers as possible.”

The bill creates a National Commission to study the causes of homegrown terrorism and recommend corrective actions. The bill creates a 10-member National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically-Based Violence to study the causes of these dangerous trends in our country and recommend corrective actions. The members would be appointed by the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and congressional leaders, including the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate Homeland Security Committees. The Commission must submit a report to Congress within 18 months on its recommendations for measures that can be taken to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism from developing and spreading within the United States.

The bill also establishes a “Center of Excellence” at a university to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. The bill requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to create or to designate an existing university-based institution as a “center of excellence” which will study the problems of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism over the long-term.

In addition, the bill calls upon the U.S. government to work with our allies who have also been dealing with homegrown terrorism to learn what successful strategies they employ. Some of our key allies – including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia – have had significant experience dealing with homegrown terrorism. The bill calls upon the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and other relevant federal agencies to conduct a survey of the methodologies used by key allies to prevent violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in their nations.

Finally, the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans. The legislation emphasizes that any action by the Administration to prevent domestic terrorism “shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and legal residents.” The bill also emphasizes that the examination of radical ideology “should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity or religion.”

http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0111

She sold out so the Kennedy family w/ CA's governator. She is worthless and needs to be removed. If the above incident have been found then apparently law enforcement have been doing a fine job already.

opps had to edit... did you read the bill?

Didn't Adams, Franklin, and co.,"adopt or promote an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change."????
Have we fallen this fuckin' far???? It's amazing how the right can venerate our founding fathers while denouncing everything they believed in.

Many of us have long known that both major parties are actually controlled by a relatively secretive elite group of people. They showed us a glimpse of their true nature after the 2006 election when the American people clearly expressed their desire to have our troops leave Iraq, and the MSM and the leadership of the Dems ignored the voters mandate and continued the Bush/NeoCon agenda of occupation.

Now we are seeing another example of the ongoing systemic corrupt nature of the DC criminals.

From now on, I am not going to blindly support anyone who has a D behind their name. I am going to support Kucinich or support a third party candidate who shares my views. It is time other progressives start doing this in large numbers, and maybe dems will start getting back to their progressive roots, as opposed to being the lesser of two evils.