Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

[Queso]

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill that was just recently passed through the house of representatives.

 

(Did anyone even hear about it?? I didn't. That creeps me out)

 

Big Brother: House passes the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act"

 

Our words and actions could be considered terrorism in the USA now.

S 1959 EVISCERATES FREE SPEECH, and empowers the govt. to declare ANYTHING they deem an "extremist belief system", instantly make you a terrorist, resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights, no ability to challenge even in the US Supreme Court.

 

I quote from a fellow tribesman who was unaware that it already passed and thought it was still in the process:

 

If this becomes law, your words could be considered "promoting an extremist belief system", and all they have to say is that you are using PLANNED OR THREATENED *FORCE* (DOES NOT HAVE TO BE VIOLENCE) --FORCE by exposing CORRUPTION, CRIMINALITY against "THE CIVILIAN POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, *****OR ANY SEGMENT THEREOF" READ THE BILL MANY TIMES AND VERY CAREFULLY--YOU ARE THE TERRORIST (WHICH MEANS THEY CAN STRIP YOUR CITIZENSHIP, AND HAVE YOU TORTURED AND EXECUTED).

 

Slowly but surely, eh?

 

What do you guys think?

[Boerseun]

Sad, really.

 

You have a nutjob at the helm. Get rid of him ASAP.

 

Any government doing what this bill entails, is living in fear of its citizens, and suppresing that which they're afraid of. And then turn to bully tactics.

[freeztar]

I'd love to research this more, but I'm at work and it's probably not a good idea right now. If this is true it is a very sad day for America. :hihi:

 

One of the key, imho, clauses that the founding fathers wrote into America's framework is the responsibility of citizens to overthrow a corrupt government. Otherwise, America would be under British rule right now. This law apparently nullifies this idea as a future possibility. Our mechanism to revolutionize our government is gone, if it wasn't already...

 

It stinks of fascism!

[Queso]

Question.

I'm new @ politics.

When a bill is passed through the house, does that mean it becomes active?

This is the creepiest thing I've seen in a while and it appears that no one even heard about it!!

[InfiniteNow]

Here is the full text of the bill:

 

GovTrack: H.R. 1955: Text of Legislation

 

 

 

Status: Introduced Apr 19, 2007 (by - Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA])

Scheduled for Debate: Aug 1, 2007

Passed House: Oct 23, 2007

 

Not yet Voted on in Senate nor Signed by President -

 

 

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

This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. [Last Updated: Oct 23, 2007]

 

Last Action: Oct 23, 2007: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 404 - 6 (Roll no. 993).

 

 

 

Of note, the following bill with the same name was also introduced by - Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME] on August 2 (but has not yet been debated):

 

GovTrack: S. 1959: Text of Legislation

[Queso]

I see. So it passes house, then senate, then prez?

And it's on it's way?

 

Well it's nice to know it isn't effective yet.

 

Anything we can do to tell them to STFU and stop being so paranoid?

[freeztar]

Write your senator and tell them not to support the bill. ;)

 

U.S. Senate: Senators Home

[Queso]

yeah they were talking about that on the forum where I found this. le sigh.

[LaurieAG]

Slowly but surely, eh?

 

What do you guys think?

 

Hi Orbsycli,

 

It looks like someone wants to actually promote homegrown terrorism, just like they have actually promoted international terrorism.

 

The real beneficiaries of the war on terror are neo politicians (and oil speculators) and the real losers are the people who have to pay for the divisive policies intending to divide and conquer.

[HydrogenBond]

The media is sort of responsible for this. It is connected to the way they maximize revenue. Let me give an analogous example. If you looked at a weather forecast, if it is projected it was going to be nice for a week, there is no need to stay tuned to the weather, since the long term projection allows one to go about their business. If the weather is forecasted as variable, with many fronts approaching, one will have to stay tuned each day to see how the weather will affect plans. To make make money the media needs you to stay tuned by trying to present variability.

 

A good analogy is data analysis. If plot the entire week and geographic area for our fair weather forecast, it is a long flat line, with a couple of tiny bumps. If we zoom into the bumps, and keep the paper the same size, we have a mountain. The media won't zoom in and out to give us a sense of perspective or scale, but will pitch the tiny bump like it is a mountain that is taking up the entire curve.

 

That is sort of what they have done with terrorists. They have never tried to create a sense of perspective, like the long term fair weather. Instead they zoom in on a few pockets of dark clouds and present that as all the data. This is good for business since people will feel the need to stayed tuned. The more people staying tuned, the more money they can make. This is their free market formula for making money and it is very affective.

 

If you were a merchant that sold umbrellas, you don't want the media to present the extended fair weather forecast. You benefit by their formula. You may even send them some pictures of dark clouds, so you can work as a team. If you read the stitches on the fastball, the implementation of this homegrown terrorist policy will allow the umbrella industry to gain market share. It fits the narrow data focus media template while also allowing more umbrellas to be sold.

 

People, as a whole, can't see through this. The reason it is affective is that they are presenting valid data. The trick works by presenting only the data, on the long graph of reality that keeps you glued. The micro managing of life by the government will make news helping their media friends show more bumps so they can keep you glued. They need the glue so people will buy their umbrellas.

 

Another trick is by the media pitching terrorists as freedom fighters, this makes it OK to be a terrorists, so more people can make news. The umbrella salesmen help the cause by broadening the category. It sort of like the umbrella are not just needed for rain but sun and wind. The goal is to be able to zoom out and make fair weather, gloomy. The herd is sort of dumb and doesn't even realize their pockets and liberty is robbed.

[InfiniteNow]

You could eliminate all media and still have problems in the world. You would also still have this bill being proposed by elected leaders. Focus on the bill, not slander of the methods information is communicated.

 

 

Btw... full text of the bill in my post above, as well as the same bill of the same name which was introduced in the Senate later in the year.

[Qfwfq]

There's no need for the amusing title IN, and it isn't even good grammar; drank is the past simple and hence out of place with the auxiliary 'has', the past participle would be drunk.

 

HB did not really say there would be no trouble without the media, only that they have an interest in making the most of things, to get people's attention all the more.

[REASON]

It's interesting. I would probably hold the national media partially responsible as well but I see it from a completely different point of view in this case (and many others these days).

 

This isn't a case where the media is over-hyping an issue in order to lure viewers/listeners/readers. This appears to be another example of the main-stream media being derelict in their duty to keep the general public informed about government activity, particularly lawmaking activity, that can have such a profound affect on our lives and our civil liberties.

 

What explains this curious lack of interest? Are we to believe that a new law that can empower officials to deem any individual or organization that is critical of our government as "terrorist" with the stroke of a pen and thus strip them of their constitutional rights, would not be seen as controversial enough to attract viewers/listeners/readers? That seems incredibly controversial to me.

 

Or maybe it makes more sense to suggest that the few large corporate entities that control the media are in league with our government in some way and have some interest in the passage of this bill, and don't want an informed public standing in the way. Or maybe all this political lawmaking business is just too complicated for the general public to understand. Besides, we can easily be distracted with the latests antics of Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, or Brittany Spears.

 

But we shouldn't be concerned, right? Our government would never abuse such a power. We're the most righteous and moral people in the world and this law is obviously just for our protection.

 

So we can go ahead and go back to sleep. ;)

 

Hey Orb, which one of Naomi Wolf's ten steps toward shutting down a democracy do you think this law would fall under?