Freedoms and Foes
H.R. 1955 is an absolute attack on the freedom of speech. Not only does it assault my right to question government, it also assaults the right of ardent Marxists to speak their minds. So, I am at a loss at both ends.
You see, I value the ability to speak as much as the ability to read nonsense from those such as the writers and curators over at Marxists.org. Should H.R. 1955 become law, no longer will I be able to read articles like "Trotsky or Deutscher? On the New Revisionism and Its Theoretical Source" from James P. Cannon, Fourth International, Winter 1954. The logical gymnastics of such articles will be gone from the web. A very sad day indeed.
I do not fear the idiocy of Cannon and his fellow travelers. But I do fear the agenda of those who proudly strut the halls of DC, American flag pin displayed loudly on lapel or blouse.
These folks aren't simply debating historical and epistemological positions, they are conspiring to subvert the remaining vestiges of Liberty and Property. They are not some group of fanatic windbags. No, they are modern day Brownshirts fighting over whose match ignites the Reichstag -- the Constitution.
The freedom of speech is about to be turned on its head. Fight H.R. 1955 as if it's your life. For without Liberty, your life is no longer yours anyway.
Comments (47)
Have you read the bill?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955
Published: November 11, 2007 10:01 AM
Having read the bill, it makes specific mention that civil and constitutional rights must be upheld in several passages. Necessarily, though, its thrust seems to be at odds with that statement.
The language of the bill does not seem to suggest forthcoming penalties for certain forms of expression and, yet, all the same at the very least the bill seems to authorize monitoring expression... of course, without regards to gender, race, and all the usual claptrap.
"You see, I value the ability to speak as much as the ability to read nonsense from those such as the writers and curators over at Marxists.org. Should H.R. 1955 become law, no longer will I be able to read articles like "Trotsky or Deutscher? On the New Revisionism and Its Theoretical Source" from James P. Cannon, Fourth International, Winter 1954. The logical gymnastics of such articles will be gone from the web. A very sad day indeed."
See, I don't get that from the language of the bill. The sense I get it is that those particular articles and anyone viewing them may be monitored, but I don't get the sense that any form of expression like that may be removed from the web.
Nonetheless, that we'd be monitored for viewing such material is onerous enough. I also don't like the use of language such as "radicalized". War and empire tends to radicalize people, if the State doesn't like that, perhaps it shouldn't indulge itself in those unhealthy past-times.
Incidentally, my representative Norm "Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace... for Jobs!" Dicks co-authored the bill, giving me all the more impetus to fight this clown in the streets if I have to. Which I would do, if he ever bothered to come home. He doesn't even come back here to campaign. I cannot think of a "representative" more disconnected from the people he's supposed to represent than this trough-feeder.
I also see that Ron Paul abstained from voting on this bill. I guess I'd chalk it up to the rigors of campaigning, only I see that Kucinich somehow found the time in his busy campaign schedule to register one of the six nay votes. Disappointing, to say the least.
Published: November 11, 2007 10:47 AM
How wonderful to know that Big Brother is always watching!
...thank God I am not in the US. Britain is only incrementally better though. :)
Published: November 11, 2007 11:17 AM
In Britain, eh?
Probably being photographed right now.
Published: November 11, 2007 11:48 AM
Another unnecessary abridgment of the freedom of speech put forth by the philofascist Democrats. Current laws against inciting to riot give us all the protection we need, as pointed out by the patriot from Texas. They want to turn us into Malaysia where any blogger critical of the government gets arrested.
Published: November 11, 2007 12:03 PM
'In Britain, eh?
Probably being photographed right now.'
Only in London. ;)
Published: November 11, 2007 12:40 PM
Seriously, go read the bill. It is NOT a law. All it provides for is establishing an independent committee to study the problem of terrorism, gather information from the various branches of law enforcement about the severity of the problem, and report back to Congress with recommendations on how to best combat terrorism - and all without infringing on civil liberties.
I've just read the thing three times and I can find absolutely NOTHING to support the conclusions of the author of this piece.
Published: November 11, 2007 2:32 PM
InnocentBystander, Yes, this is just a bill, and it is bound to be law. I think that what you are stating is that it has no enforcement provisions.
But, if the intent of this bill is simply the creation a commission, report, and Center for Excellence, why the repeated callouts to civil rights and civil liberties? Why tuck it into Homeland Security Act?
You seem to think that the provisions are time-limited. While the committee and its report have end dates, the other provisions are not time-limited. They become perpetual law.
You also seem to think that the three definitions are innocuous; words of no concern. I think otherwise. The definitions create a large net; a net that we may not escape.
To wit: Robert, You just became a member of "homegrown terrorism" by your efforts to intimidate for a political objective -- threat to fight your congressman in the streets.
To both: What protections against assaults on civil rights and liberties currently exist?
Keep in mind that there are two constitutional amendments that give all power to the people and the several states, other than those enumerated in the Constitution. So, anytime the feds go outside the enumerated powers, they are -- by definition -- violating your rights. Does that ever raise a flag? The civil rights/liberties guarantee in the bill is a dead letter; it's meaningless.
Speech is limited all the time -- and not just the "fire" in the crowded theater type. One of the most important areas of speech -- election speech -- is severely regulated, with fines, etc.
No one really questions the constitutional ability of congress to limit such speech.
Or, start counseling people to not pay their federal taxes and see what happens.
Today, most American are shaking from the never ending political fear speeches. Terrorism has grasped this nation. Do you really imagine a big stink if my friends at Marxists.org are silenced?
Reread the bill's findings as they are the statement of congressional intent. And, consider the fact that Robert is now a violator of the homegrown terrorist provision. Let's hope that his statement doesn't come back to bite him.
Regardless of everything previously stated, if you really believe government when it says that it intends to protect your rights and liberties, with the audit being performed by the agency itself, then sleep easy. All is well.
I, on the other hand, put this bill in context of ENDA (HR 3685) and other current efforts to curtail my rights -- whether you call them natural or God-given. I do not think all is well.
Time will tell I suppose. Let's hope and pray that you both are correct and the DC blob is simply acting, as always, in our best interests.
Let me leave you with this bit of wisdom. I was a minor player in politics; I served on an elected school board. Even at that level, the political body exists simply to defend itself. It never cares about its supposed constituents, its main concern is the protection of its status and power. Anything that is perceived as a challenge to that status and power is attacked.
Sometimes it is as petty as the coach who threatens an 8th grade girl whose parent dared to speak at a board meeting. The reaction of the collective elected body? Defend the coach and attack the parent. No one is allowed to challenge the powers that be.
If you want to accept government's word as to its intent, remember that this nation was founded by two groups: those who feared government, and those who feared the people. That the first group won does not mean the second simply fell in line.
The battle over government and rights has been perpetual, with the latter group winning. The former group fights the occasional pitched battle, only to retreat in the end. This may just end up being the latest retreat. You decide.
Published: November 11, 2007 4:24 PM
I'm scared of terrorists. Maybe if this commission can keep an eye on all of us, and we also help by spying and informing on each other we can be a little safer. We should be inviting these people to monitor our phone calls and web traffic; even into our homes for searches. If you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to hide, right? We'll just get rid of the scary terrorists and then we can get back to normal. BTW, the government just issued a statement that said terrorists may be looking to shoot up shopping malls this holiday season - keep an eye on your neighbor!
Published: November 11, 2007 4:29 PM
Exactly. Listen to the repeated warnings at airports to report anything suspicious.
The next time that you are in airport, put on your paranoid cap and observe acting man. From the man in a dark coat feigning sleep to the young woman operating a laptop while making a cell phone call -- to whom? for what purpose? -- everyone looks suspicious.
Better start reporting them all.
Published: November 11, 2007 4:35 PM
"If you're not doing anything wrong what do you have to hide, right? We'll just get rid of the scary terrorists and then we can get back to normal."
Yep. That's the thing average citizen believe in, all over the world.
Especially older people too... they'd rather be searched for four hours before they take the plane, than to face a slightly higher probability to be blown up between Phoenix-Las Vegas.
It's maybe also part of this we-like-to-be-together-thing. We 'd rather be hassled then left alone completely. Let's face it: the government figure really is a father figure that too many people fear to lose whenever its utility is even just discussed.
To many people in modern times, Government is everything they have left as a family. That's decadent, but I wonder if it can be reversed.
Published: November 12, 2007 2:52 AM
The above phrase "impetus to fight this clown in the streets if I have to" by one of the commenters might be, by a member of the "national commission on the PREVENTION (read as crimethink) of violent radicalization and ideologically based violence" to be "ideologically based violence" because it "threatens use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs."
These quotes are taken from HR 1955.
I don't much see this as a threat to marxists.org. Marxists.org has little political clout, which is going to be the main concern of people appointed by:
1. the President
2. the Secretary (of Homeland Stupidity)
3. the majority leader of the Senate
4. the minority leader of the Senate
5. the Speaker of the House of Representatives
6. the minority leader of the House of Representatives
7. the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives
8. the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives
9. the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
10. the ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate
(Interestingly enough, this balance is designed to be at least 6-4 in favor of whichever party holds the presidency.)
No, these people aren't threatened politically by marxists.org.
They might however feel themselves threatened by an ideologically based, decentralized group of well-organized cells (which they call "meetup groups") that can raise $4.3M in one day for an anti-establishment presidential candidate. Calls 'emselves a "revolution". Individuals of which make angry, pugnacious comments on youtube.
Sound like anybody we know?
Published: November 12, 2007 7:22 AM
"Examine and report upon the facts and causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States..."
You guys might have missed the word "violent". Last I checked, advocating the VIOLENT overthrow of the United States of America was and should be illegal.
Published: November 12, 2007 4:33 PM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/knaebel/knaebel11.html
Published: November 12, 2007 4:39 PM
Servius,
Who says the violent ideologically based necessarily want to ovethrow the government?
Published: November 12, 2007 4:41 PM
"You guys might have missed the word "violent". Last I checked, advocating the VIOLENT overthrow of the United States of America was and should be illegal."
I guess you might have missed the fact that Marx and the other socialists/communists of a similar mind call for the "violent" overthrow (i.e. the bloody workers' revolution) of the capitalist oppressor class and their tool, the state apparatus.
Read the piece I linked above. Imagine how broadly "The Decider" might like to interpret "(2) Violent Radicalization." Now put anyone other than Ron Paul in the seat of POTUS. Nah, there's obviously nothing to fear… right, subservius?
Published: November 12, 2007 4:47 PM
"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."
I suppose they don't need to overthrow the government per se. Just intimidate us into voting or acting in a way consistent with their goals by use of bombings, assassinations, etc. For reference see Madrid 2004, London 2005, Bali 2002, Syria's actions in Lebanon, etc.
Published: November 12, 2007 4:52 PM
"I guess you might have missed the fact that Marx and the other socialists/communists of a similar mind call for the "violent" overthrow (i.e. the bloody workers' revolution) of the capitalist oppressor class and their tool, the state apparatus."
No, I don't think I did.
Published: November 12, 2007 4:58 PM
Keep in mind that there are already laws that exist to punish violent actions. So, we are no longer just looking at action per say, but thoughts that may lead to actions.
And, as Black Bloke points out, my foolish friends over at Marxists.org continually express thoughts -- ideas -- in support of a workers revolution.
Read the linked article where the author strongly advocates the very same.
Published: November 12, 2007 5:00 PM
"Keep in mind that there are already laws that exist to punish violent actions."
Right, So we're not talking about making anything illegal but studying groups that use violence to coerce the rest of us.
"Read the linked article where the author strongly advocates the very same."
I've got a problem with that. I have no problem resisting a government's violent actions against myself or my property the way the militia did at the Old North Bridge. But we haven't reached that point and rhetoric like that only serves to drive away potential allies in the defense of liberty.
Published: November 12, 2007 5:08 PM
Servius: "I suppose they don't need to overthrow the government per se. Just intimidate us into voting or acting in a way consistent with their goals by use of bombings, assassinations, etc."
LOL! I suppose the right to intimidate, bomb, and assassinate does belong exclusively to the government, not the people.
Can't have competition now, can we?
Published: November 12, 2007 5:10 PM
Servius,
You either take free speech with all its warts or you simply supplant the current regime with a different one.
Published: November 12, 2007 5:12 PM
"I suppose the right to intimidate, bomb, and assassinate does belong exclusively to the government, not the people."
We give government a monopoly on force in order to protect our Life, Liberty, and Property. Only when that government turns the force on its people are we justified in taking up arms against it. Even then it would be illegal although it would be the right thing to do.
I know you're going to come back at me with our current confiscatory tax code. But so long as we have the ability to convince our fellow citizens to repeal such measures and a state of war does not actually exist with our government as it did when the crown treated the colonists of the 1770's as enemies, plotting violence is wrong.
Only when and if the government were to declare war on its citizens and their right to change the system peacefully.
That's really what we're talking about after all. A violent radical group would be one set upon taking away our right to peacefully change our government. And I would fight that group with everything I had whether it's the Islamonazis or the US Army. But were not there at least with regards to the Army.
"You either take free speach with all its warts... "
No. You can criticize, complain, insult, carp, whine, all you want. You cannot advocate violence to achieve a political end.
Published: November 12, 2007 5:29 PM
Servius,
Who decides the disposition of thoughts? Government? So, government decides who can speak?
We are not talking actions here, purely the thoughts of individuals.
Can I assume that you do not believe that Marxists.org should be allowed on the net?
What about Das Capital in libraries?
Published: November 12, 2007 5:37 PM
"Who decides the disposition of thoughts?"
I would think a jury would be capable of determining the difference between run of the mill carping and planning a bombing campaign.
Sorry, haven't read Das Capital lately. Is there a passage in there discussing exactly where to place a bomb in a mall to cause maximum carnage?
Published: November 12, 2007 5:42 PM
Servius,
You are not answering the question: Does Marxists.org have a right to be on the net?
Nothing is ever black and white. There is the penumbra -- the gray area that exists between the two. What makes you believe that your reasonable understanding is going to be accepted by a jury -- as if a jury will always hear such cases.
Thought and speech are not issues like speeding -- and even that has a 5 to 7 mile per hour penumbra.
You would allow the card-carrying communist the right to possess and disseminate books by Marx, but you would stop some -- as yet undefined -- ideas that you consider to be over your arbitrary line.
Aren't you at all concerned that even you and I cannot define the line? Yet, you are willing to allow government to define it for both of us. Again, not an action, but a thought.
Would you even attempt to tread within some distance of this arbitrary line in order to make a point? Would you take the risk?
Regardless, answer the question: Does Marxists.org have a right to be on the net even though some of its articles advocate violent revolution?
Published: November 12, 2007 6:08 PM
Servius,
Also, please define "Islamonazis." I do not perceive a large Nazi or Fascist movement in the Middle East. Or, is that simply a perjurative term for something else?
Published: November 12, 2007 6:15 PM
Of course they have a right to be on the net.
Of course they do not have a right to advocate violent revolution. However, post a link to what you're talking about.
Let me put the question to you. A while back a group of Jihadis were arrested for plotting to attack Fort Dix in New Jersey. They had plotted, trained, and sought weapons to engage in this enterprise.
They didn't actually carry out the attack.
Did they have a right to do this? Should they have been arrested? Or should we only arrest them after they carry out the attack?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Fort_Dix_attack_plot
Published: November 12, 2007 6:16 PM
Servius,
By now you should know that you don't have a right to change your government, peacefully or otherwise. Consider peaceful change in government a privilege.
Published: November 12, 2007 6:22 PM
"By now you should know that you don't have a right to change your government, peacefully or otherwise"
See, that's the kind of rhetoric that just drives away most people who would otherwise be allies in the defense of Liberty.
Published: November 12, 2007 6:28 PM
Servius,
According to your link: "The U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler called it 'an unusual case' and hoped that the trial will begin by early October, adding, 'If the government is not able to prove this case, they should not be in jail. I want to get this resolved.'"
I don't know what the judge is referring to when he states that it is "an unusual case." I guess we will have to see how it turns out.
Keep in mind that there have always been nutheads in the US. Traveling on a plane in the 70's was always a roll of the dice; you may have ended up in Cuba. But, we didn't sell out our freedoms back then, did we?
Kevin B. is correct. Laws such as these are not created to perpetuate America as founded. They are created to protect the entrenched government and its bureacracy.
By the way, Glenn Beck is now considering the Ron Paul candidacy a terrorist movement. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/glenn.beck/
Is he the jury that will defend our freedoms?
Published: November 12, 2007 6:30 PM
"See, that's the kind of rhetoric that just drives away most people who would otherwise be allies in the defense of Liberty."
To be honest, I think that most people just don't really give a damn.
Published: November 12, 2007 6:31 PM
Beck also said that libertarian websites like Lewrockwell.com are "in bed with the Islamo fascists."
Published: November 12, 2007 6:32 PM
Jim, You didn't answer the question. Suppose the story's correct. Should we have let them attack? Or pick them up before hand.
Kevin, Most people may not give a damn but most people who love liberty are turned off by over the top rhetoric. Glenn Beck isn't doing anyone any favors either.
Regarding the jury selection process I would think Beck would be what's called a prejudicial juror.
Don't forget this bill we're discussing makes nothing illegal. It forms a study group on terror organizations.
Are the people at marxist.org a terror group? I don't know I've never read their stuff. Maybe you could take a look and post a link to what would be the most incriminating article over there.
I'm heading home. Won't be back online for a few hours.
Published: November 12, 2007 6:43 PM
A fascist accusing others of being fascists? How cute. Sort of like Chavez. ;) And we now know how to respond to such people...
Por que no te callas?
Published: November 12, 2007 6:45 PM
Servius,
Your questions: "Did they have a right to do this? Should they have been arrested? Or should we only arrest them after they carry out the attack?"
I cannot answer them as it appears that the judge thinks something is up with the state's case -- I may be off since I don't know the whole story.
Let's wait until the trial and all evidence is presented.
As far as hypotheticals -- question to you: What if they are innocent? Was the state justified?
Published: November 12, 2007 6:48 PM
Note: comment was in reference to Beck.
Published: November 12, 2007 6:49 PM
"As far as hypotheticals -- question to you: What if they are innocent? Was the state justified?"
The state obtained an indictment in accordance with due process. So, yes.
But you still ducked the question. Should we stop a plot and arrest the plotters? or let the plot continue and arrest them after the attack? Just how far does your commitment to "Free Speech" go?
Published: November 12, 2007 7:45 PM
Sometimes a mans got to do what a man has got to do.
Honorable Gordon Smith
U.S. Senator for
The State of Oregon
Washington D.C.
Dear Senator Smith
I write to you this day to express my deepest concern about a matter that I have just become aware of. It involves a bill, H.R. 1955, that the House has referred to the Senate. Titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 I have serious concerns that the definitions and purposes contained within this legislation which greatly constrain a liberty guaranteed to us in the First Amendment of the Constitution. I say this as the backdrop of what is occurring in Pakistan with their government’s opposition leader being placed under house arrest again in order to prevent an assembly of protesters from voicing their concerns about the current ruling administration recalls that this measure has the ability to create similar chilling consequences in this nation.
I would like to draw your attention to the wording contained within the definitions of this measure. It lists as follows:
SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`For purposes of this subtitle:
`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
`(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.
Sir, I ask you this simple question. Do not these definitions apply to our founding fathers? Under these definitions, is not the IRS, CIA, FBI, PETA, NRA, PTA and host of other organizations involved “in furtherance of political or social objectives”?
Sir, I grew up in Roy, Utah in the shadow of the temple of the Mormon faith. I know the history of the people of your faith and I ask you, according to this material, during the time frame that the persecution of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young was occurring, wouldn’t those doing the persecution be viewed as “homegrown, ideologically based terrorists”? After all, was it not because of the threats and actions that created the terror within the Mormon congregants that forced their movement out of Missouri and onto Utah?
Sir, our nation is built on individuals that according to these definitions are terrorists, homegrown or otherwise. Ask any American Indian or African American if the history of this nation from their perspective is not one of terror. Ask any Southern if they believe that they weren’t terrorized by the actions of General Sherman and the federal armies in his march to the sea. Ask the Japanese Americans if they weren’t terrorized during World War II or the communist community during Senator McCarthy’s reign.
Sir, I ask you to read these next words very carefully, since they are the words of a number of homegrown terrorists that this type of legislation tries to thwart.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Fifty six men signed this as their death warrant by addressing this document to their king. In the spirit of these fine men I too am send this knowing that simply by disagreeing with the mechanism of our government and addressing these grievances with you, a government representative, I am pushing the limits of being called a homegrown terrorist since I may be purporting a radical belief system. So in order to create the atmosphere that really this legislation opposes I have sent this same letter as an email to a friend with the prospect of enlisting and enflaming him with the same contempt that I have for the purpose about this matter. And since I fervently believe that my cause is just and relevant to the leading purposes of living in just society I have posted this letter to blog in order to fully share my values and beliefs with other like-minded individuals in the hopes of rallying them to the point of creating a mass demonstration against the oppressive tactics that this administration has deemed necessary to control the minds of the populace.
I have started this letter as a simple concerned citizen but have become during its course what the legislation abhors. How unfortunate that the mere communication of valued beliefs held by each of us cannot be communicated or even demonstrated without the specter of 9/11 being used as a frame of reference. My beliefs are something that I’ve held for longer than seven years sir, yet now they are circumspect merely because they enflame the notion of freedom and liberty. Sir, all freedom and liberty is messy.
I seriously request that you do all in your power, as my representative in the Senate, to persuade other members of the Senate to the injustices that I have tried to communicate to you and to defend my beliefs, be they possibly not your own, that the genesis of this nation holds with it powerful forces that still must be adhered to despite what the present situation dictates.
Respectfully
Your Constituent
Published: November 12, 2007 9:06 PM
Nicely written, Mike! Mind if I plagiarize it and send it to my own senators?
Published: November 13, 2007 11:10 AM
Servius - See, that's the kind of rhetoric that just drives away most people who would otherwise be allies in the defense of Liberty.
It seems the people here (are they really libertarians ?) and the Mises Institute are clumsy advocates of freedom.
Maybe the state should shut this website down and allocate the resources someplace else ?
Published: November 13, 2007 12:44 PM
Should the government be able to convict us of crimes we have not committed? Should the government be able to punish us for crimes we might have thought about but haven't committed? Should the government identify potential perpetrators and deprive them of liberty under the pretext that they could be dangerous?
I liked the movie "Minority Report" because it examined these questions in a negative light. Unfortunately, it would appear that most people think it is okay to punish people before they have actually committed a crime.
Yes, I have heard the bombastic arguments about "Would you let your neighbor have a nuclear device?" Yes, I would. But I would try to maintain friendly relations with him. On the other hand, our government officials have threatened to nuke anyone who gets in their way (come to think of it, our government officials are the only people in history to actually nuke someone).
I am not afraid of terrorism because I haven't done anything personally that would draw the attention of a terrorist. Beyond that, the odds are vanishingly small that a random act of terror would affect me.
I am afraid of the government because I have done things to draw the attention of government officials. They put me on the "no-fly" list for several years, and I am sure they keep track of me now. The odds are extremely high that the government will take action against me, and H.R. 1955 is the next step towards that.
Unlike the naive masses who quietly huddle in nationalism, I have no choice about standing up against tyranny. The tyrants know who I am and will not leave me be. It is us or them. Unless I want to end up with a bullet in the brain from a government issued gun and an unmarked mass grave, I have to oppose evil with reason.
It saddens me that our great constitution has been circumvented by conniving enemies. In spite of anything that may come, I stand in the camp of freedom. For me it is more important to be on the right team than the winning team, although I hope in the end that they are one and the same.
Published: November 13, 2007 1:53 PM
Servius: "See, that's the kind of rhetoric that just drives away most people who would otherwise be allies in the defense of Liberty."
Right, I forgot to add the smiley faces.
Me: "By now you should know that you don't have a right to change your government, peacefully or otherwise." ;P
Now they'll pay attention. XD
Published: November 13, 2007 4:13 PM
http://stuff.co.nz/4272184a10.html
Published: November 13, 2007 11:00 PM
Although I am in no way a fan of Abraham Lincoln, he stated a Right that we all seem to have forgotten or have been indoctrinated to consider abhorent:
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
The Revolutionary Right of the People has not only been philosophically neutralized by The State doctrinally, but it now appears that Right is being further criminalized to protect the government State from the Defensive Right of the People to protect themselves from the very institution created to protect them and their Natural Rights. This Revolutionary Right, as all other Inalienable Rights are not granted by government, but government, operates at the pleasure of the Consent of the People.
We have, especially in the last century, been coerced into a system of contingent freedom solely based upon our compliance with the Will of The State and without such compliance there are various degrees of retribution from The State. The State desires our Compliance rather than our Consent and it operates accordingly.
Published: November 14, 2007 8:20 PM
Another unnecessary abridgment of the freedom of speech put forth by the philofascist Democrats.
Come on. The Repbulicfreaks signed onto to this absolutely. Just six members of Congress said no. They include Dennis Kucinich (very left) and Ron Paul (very right). The rest piled on, both Republifreaks and democRATS.
It's not about left and right repub of dem. It's about class warfare. They know what they've done with their BS free trade agreements .. they know what's coming, and they're scared- very scared.
Why does everything have to be partisan? They're all millionaires, taking care of things for people of their class and protecting them from the filthy masses who might rise up with pitchforks at any time.
When you see that, then it all makes much more sense.
Published: December 10, 2007 11:42 AM
Reason for this Bill is obvious if you look at CIA case book
Both the basic reason that the global corporatist Empire behind the facade of this 'Vichy American' phony government, and the time pressure to get this bill into law, are very obvious if one looks at the language of the bill's rationale, and the CIA case book.
1. In the language of the bill one quickly finds the reference to the proposed Center's research on possible "economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States".
2. The CIA country case book notes with warning that, any country with a GINI Coefficent of Income Inequality above 0.45 is susceptible to "civil disobedience" and possible anti-government actions.
Add to this later warning from the CIA regarding "any country" the absolute FACT that the U.S. GINI Index of inequality was 0.47 and rising fast in 2005.
Even the extreme apologist for capitalism, Alan Greenspan, in his new book, "Age of Turbulence" noted the 2005 ranking of the US GINI as 0.47, and cautioned that the otherwise wonderful age of unrivaled globalism and US 'free market' capitalist creative destruction was endangered by the growing "inequality of economic beneifts".
For anyone who is interested in the GINI Coefficient as the economists 'gold standard' measure of a society's inequality it is only necessary to take a quick check on how the US stacks up with regard to it peers in all other developed countries: it's literally "off the charts" above all developed countries in inequality!!
In fact, the only countries that the US matches in its height of income inequality are South American 'banana republics', African dictatorships, and Middle Eastern 'oil monarchies'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
Thus, I would submit, that the basic rationale and particularly the time rush to get HR 1955 / S 1959 passed and "in force" is because the US population is, by the CIA's own warning, likely to exhibit "civil disorder" based on the current highly unsustainable GINI Index of inequality, and that this situation is likely to become explosive as this Ponzi economy of the global corporatist Empire behind 'Vichy America' quickly continues to tip beyond 'recession' and into a full blown 'depression' --- that will, in my humble opinion, make the "Great Depression" of the 1930's look like a Sunday picnic.
The only good news in all this apparent gloom that I bear is that there are historically only two ways that Empires are overthrown and end:
1. Peaceful, albeit painful, economic crash --- or --
2. Massive war losses.
In today's nuclear age, I would gladly bear the pressure of the former as the catalyst to finally kill-off this global corporatist Empire which has our democracy by the throat under the guise of its phony 'Vichy American' government, rather than to have my children and all Americans experience the later.
Published: December 11, 2007 10:19 AM