H.R. 1955 - a poem by Jane Harman

A

Avid_Consumer

has anyone else been following this bill? I looked for stories in the NYT and Washington Post and couldn't find any mention. So far it's passed in the senate.

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

899A (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.

899B (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.


it seems to be targeting the internet, and 'facilitate' seems like an awfully broad term. is this paving the way for political censorship? what do people think?
 
Quote from Avid_Consumer:

899A (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.
More...


Ironic isn't it. This bill appears to now make a crime that which founded the nation.

Saying 'no' to taxation without representation seemed like a pretty radical idea at the time. Without a doubt, had this bill made it into law in the mid 1800's, calling for the end of the practice of slavery would have met the definition of 'extremist beliefs' as defined above.

We all better hope the Supremes keep their heads about them on the second amendment case because by the looks of things, we are gonna' need those guns.

- Spydertrader
 
that's a pretty bitter irony isn't it? and it doesn't seem isolated either. check out this FEMA instructor describing the founding fathers as terrorists. his opinion is unambiguous

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZPg9MdN9Gio&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZPg9MdN9Gio&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

it's pretty old news but i also recently stumbled on a Joint Terrorism Task Force leaflet that lists defenders of the constitution as potential terrorists.

what's going on here? is the constitution now an extremist belief system?

fbipam.jpg
 
Hooo-eee, exactly the same material the soviets and the stazi used.
What a huge suprise.


"Common law movement proponents?"

You read that shit? Any fool could write letters to their rep, complaining about virtually anything-and be subject to these laws.
 
Quote from Spydertrader:

Saying 'no' to taxation without representation seemed like a pretty radical idea at the time. Without a doubt, had this bill made it into law in the mid 1800's, calling for the end of the practice of slavery would have met the definition of 'extremist beliefs' as defined above.
More...

it's interesting that you bring that up, during thanksgiving travel this morning, i noticed a DC license plate with a 'taxation without representation' inscription. despite growing up in the area, i'd never noticed that before but was pleased to see it. makes me wonder though, why this particular anomaly has existed for so long and is now relegated to a symbolic protest. It looks like DC's petitions for equal representation have been repeatedly denied

As a side note, GW had those plates removed from the presidential limousines and replaced with blank DC plates, and has threatened veto of the bill to grant DC representation in the senate based on article I, section II of the constitution. ..A lonely example of GW's respect for the constitution.. catching DC on the technicality of statehood to defend the electoral status quo

from wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights

"The justification against statehood for the District is explained in the Federalist No. 43, where it is noted that the federal government needs to ensure a level of stability in order to perform its duties that could not be guaranteed by a reliance upon any state. Such a provision was considered necessary following Pennsylvania's failure to use their authority to suppress a riot outside the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), then home of Congress under the Articles of Confederation"

i also just want to correct myself, HR 1955 has so far passed in the house, not the senate
 
god forbid jane harman turns the GWOT into a DWOT.

this is a severe perversion of history. let's start with a fair, proper investigation of 911 before we premise a domestic war on terror on the event. seems reasonable to me considering that the 911 commission was only established when the victim's families threatened to take their grievances to the press

are we to believe that 911 was so unpredictable as to be unpreventable, yet predictable enough not to warrant investigation?

before we go hunting for the next mcveigh, maybe we should actually study the acute lack of evidence, executive desire for objectivity, and belated investigative effort substantiating the official explanation for 911

JMHO
 
if anyone else finds that posted pamphlet absurd, maybe we should assemble and call the Arizona FBI on the same day to report ourselves as 'defenders of the US constitution against the federal government (super patriots)', especially in light of HR 1955

...i'm proud of that position. i don't think US citizens have anything to hide from the federal government. Save them the trouble
 
The Homegrown terrorism Act targets 9/11 Truthers, Ron Paul Supporters, 2nd Amendment Groups, Constitutionalists and Right-Wing/Anti-NWO Talk Radio.

Any "fierce" Government critic exercising their First Amendment Rights can be deemed guilty of "violent radicalization" that aids terrorists.


Look at the definitions carefully:

“(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.


Now substitute the definition for "ideologically based violence" into the above:

“The term ‘violent radicalization’ means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1955_rfs.xml



Basically, any personality in the alternative media is now RESPONSIBLE if any ONE of their MILLIONS of listeners verbally threatens violence.

A pro-gun caller into Live Fire Radio swears to defend his second amendment right - even if the police come around to collect firearms - now becomes a violent radical. Larry Pratt (President of Gun Owners of America and host of Live Fire) is arrested on charges of violent radicalization and aiding homegrown terrorists.

Anti-Federal Reserve wingnut physically lashes out at former chairmen Greenspan during book signing. After searching his home, anti-Fed paraphernalia is found - some of it authored by Ron Paul. Ron Paul is later arrested for "radicalizing homegrown terrorists" based on his extremist "anti-fed" beliefs.


This legislation also makes it incredibly EASY for the Government to invent patsys and arrest political undesirables for the "radicalization" of their concocted patsys...

An Anti-North American Union "protestor" gets on TV and threatens violence against a treasonous Federal Government if the NAFTA Superhighway continues construction in Texas. After the mans house is searched, numerous Alex Jones DVD's are "found" and Alex Jones is later arrested on charges of fomenting homegrown terrorism.

This bill was written to marginalize, silence and imprison ANY Establishment critic - be they alternative media, political or civil figureheads.

They will be coming for us next.

And once the Government gets you on "violent radicalization" you're done. The Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2 and Military Commissions allow the President to then deem these aiders and abettors of terrorists AS TERRORISTS, stripped of their citizenship and shipped to Gitmo, or God knows where else!


See where this is going?

This will silence most of the media. And the rest will get arrested by it.

America is on the verge of becoming a Fascist State. This is no joke.

All Patriots who love this Country and Constitution need to rally now!

We could very well see the end of our Constitution within 3 years.

Yet in this time where terrorists at 'home' and overseas want to do Great Evil against America - the Border is WIDE OPEN.

Wake up.

This it folks.
 
Quote from Avid_Consumer:

if anyone else finds that posted pamphlet absurd, maybe we should assemble and call the Arizona FBI on the same day to report ourselves as 'defenders of the US constitution against the federal government (super patriots)', especially in light of HR 1955

...i'm proud of that position. i don't think US citizens have anything to hide from the federal government. Save them the trouble
More...


Great idea.

And make a news event out of it.

Exemplify the traitors that head up our Government.
 
Quote from achilles28:

This bill was written to marginalize, silence and imprison ANY Establishment critic - be they alternative media, political or civil figureheads.
More...

Totally, great points. Thanks vm for weighing in Achilles. People should be talking about this in a major way.. if you disagree, let's discuss it. if you agree, speak your peace. It sounds like we all basically have about a year before we become potentially susceptible to prosecution or silencing for free speech

I find it ASTOUNDING that there isn't even a whisper about this bill ANYWHERE in the main stream press. Washington Post? No. New York Times? No. CNN? Fox? Give me a f*cking break people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top