Hr 1955

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by sealybobo, Jul 23, 2008.

  1. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,397
    Thanks Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,114
    The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism.

    Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill.

    The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime.

    http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2008
  2. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,507
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    Ohh Look the Liberal Democrats voted for it. Using YOUR logic it MUST be a good bill.
     
  3. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,397
    Thanks Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,114
    Not true. I strongly disapprove. What do you think?
     
  4. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    39,507
    Thanks Received:
    5,897
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +8,920
    Ron Paul is a loon, his take on something won't convince me of anything.
     
  5. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,397
    Thanks Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,114
    But what do you think about this bill? Approve or disapprove? Forget Ron Paul. He is one man.

    Or are you waiting for Rush to tell you what you think before you can reply with any amount of information. Or one of your buddies on here to come running to your aid. You don't have an opinion? That's perfect. You just follow orders. Typical military fashion.
     
  6. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Provide a link to your quote in the OP, please. I think you've been asked to do this before, yes?
     
  7. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    That's absurd... everyone voted for it. It Passed 404-6, 22 not voting

    H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)

    To me, the actual statute sounds like they're putting together a think tank to study root causes of terrorism. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing. The objection to the bill seems to be that it is vague as to what constitutes a terroristic organization. And it sounds a little too HUAC for my taste.

    These are the Bill's definitions (it's not law b/c it hasn't gone through the Senate yet)

    GovTrack: H.R. 1955: Text of Legislation

    What I will say is that every member of the New York Delegation voted for it, including Gerry Nadler, Charlie Rangel and Anthony Weiner. That leads me to believe that I'm right about the think tank nature of it.

    Thoughts?
     
  8. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    Yeah, that's how it reads, doesn't it?

    What does any of us want to bet the "university-based" university has already been selected?

    Agreed.

    It passed by such a huge margin, and before the media ever brought it to our attention?

    Sounds like a fix of some kind is in, to me.

    This is either a pork farm bill, or its something well thought out. What? How can any of us possibly know?

    The wording of the bill is entirely too vague to suit my somewhat paranoic sensibilites.

    The inclusion of the term "lone wolf", for example?

    Hell, that means that anyone, absolutely anyone can be sucked into this catagory of potential threat if it suits somebody's purposes to target them.

    No evidence of any kind of conspiracy is needed to put any individual under the microscope.

    Creepy.
     
  9. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    I'm sure it has. The interesting question is which university? Harvard? Columbia? Stanford? Yale?

    Yeah, kind of creeped me out a little, actually.

    I would have liked there to have been some type of public hearing on it. I didn't like that it was virtually unanimous. But then I look at the few people who voted against it: Dennis Kucinish (D), Dana Rohrabacher (R), and a few others, and there's no pattern.

    I think they're talking about Timothy McVeigh types.

    Depends on what they're doing with it. Studying root causes? Or taking subsequent action.

    I really don't feel I have enough information on this.
     
  10. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    50,397
    Thanks Received:
    3,179
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +10,114
    Sorry about that.
     

Share This Page