Posts Tagged ‘terrorism’

Unbelievable, if one actually stands up and fights for the rights and what they believe they will labeled as a sort of “evil”. I am not a tea partier myself as I believe the movement started out as a real movement and sold it’s a soul and just became another arm of Sarah Palin and the Republican Party. But, but…I do support the Tea Partiers as I believe in the freedom to assembly peacefully. People should stand up if they think they are being mistreated, hence our free society and constutional rights.  Read this

Tea party vision for Mont. raising concerns

By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press Matt Gouras, Associated Press Thu Feb 24, 5:13 pm ET

HELENA, Mont. – With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff’s OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias.

It’s the tea party world. But not everyone is buying their vision.

Some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock. And, they say, the push to nullify federal laws could be dangerous.

“We are the United States of America,” said Schweitzer. “This talk of nullifying is pretty toxic talk. That led to the Civil War.”

A tea party lawmaker said raising the specter of a civil war is plain old malarkey.

“Nullification is not about splitting this union apart,” freshman Rep. Derek Skees said. “Nullification is just one more way for us to tell the federal government: ‘That is not right.”

Some of their bills are moving through the legislature. Others appear doomed: an armed citizen militia, FBI agents under the thumb of the sheriff and a declaration that global warming is good for business.

Whatever their merits, the ideas are increasingly popping up in legislatures across the nation, as a wave of tea party-backed conservatives push their anti-spending, anti-federal government agenda.

Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee are discussing the creation of a joint compact, like a treaty, opposing the 2010 health care law. Idaho is considering a plan to nullify it, as is Montana.

In Montana, the GOP gained a supermajority in the Montana House in last year’s election, giving Republicans control of both legislative chambers. Half of the 68 House Republicans are freshman, many sympathetic to the new political movement.

Over the first 45 days of the new legislature, they have steadily pushed their proposals. Some have moved out of committee.

Examples include a bill making it illegal to enforce some federal gun laws in the state, and another aimed at establishing state authority over federal regulation of greenhouse gasses.

Schweitzer is watching, describing many of the proposals from the new majority as simply “kooky,” such as a plan to make it legal to hunt big game with a spear.

Hardly a day goes by, however, that the merits of “nullification” aren’t discussed.

Proponents draw on Thomas Jefferson’s late 18th-century argument that aimed to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters and let them ban certain federal laws in their borders.

Supporters are not dissuaded by the legal scholars who say the notion runs afoul of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that declares federal law “the supreme law of the land.”

Backers of nullification say they can get the federal government to back down off a law if enough states band together against it.

They point to the REAL ID act — a Bush-era plan to assert federal control over state identifications as a way to combat terrorism. The law has been put in limbo after 25 states adopted legislation opposing it.

The nullification debate reached a fever pitch this week when tea party conservatives mustered enough votes in the House to pass a 17-point declaration of sovereignty.

“States retain the right of protecting all freedoms of individual persons from federal incursion,” the measure in part reads. Now, it heads to the Senate, where ardent states’ rights conservatives have less influence and its fate is less certain.

House Minority Leader Jon Sesso stood in the House Chamber, exasperated. He peppered Republicans with questions: Who decides if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?

“Who among us is making these determinations that our freedoms are being lost?” he asked, an incredulous expression on his face as he eyed the Republican side of the chamber.

Republican Rep. Cleve Loney rose. A man of few words, the tea party organizer replied: “I don’t intend us to secede from the union. But I will tell you it is up to us. We are the people to decide.”

The political movement that caught Democrats by surprise at the ballot box also caught them flat-footed at the Legislature.

At first they rolled their eyes, but now they are quickly ramping up their opposition, even recycling a slogan once leveled by conservatives against liberals protesting the Vietnam War.

“I say to you: ‘This is America: Love it or leave it,'” shouted Rep. William McChesney, during the sovereignty declaration debate.

Some Republicans have turned against the more aggressive tea party ideas.

“You are scaring the you-know-what out of them with this kind of talk,” veteran Republican lawmaker Walt McNutt said. “This needs to stop and stop now. Stop scaring our constituents and stop letting us look like a bunch of buffoons.”

Democrats are resigned to losing many of the votes and in some cases have urged Republicans to trot the ideas out for floor debates for the public to see. And surprised residents are taking notice, especially of the nullification push.

“It would be hard for anyone to top what is going on here in terms of the insanity of it all,” said Lawrence Pettit, a retired university president and author living in Helena. “One could be amused by it, except it is too dangerous.”

Schweitzer, meanwhile, is getting ready for the bills that may arrive on his desk. On Wednesday, he got a new cattle brand from the state livestock agency that reads “VETO.” A branding iron is being made.

“Ain’t nobody in the history of Montana has had so many danged ornery critters that needed branding,” he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224/ap_on_re_us/us_tea_party_world

With protesting leading to coup d’ etat in the middle east and acts of violent aggression, the focus on it in the US Congress is getting a more serious look. Right now protesting is protected under the Right to Freely Assemble. But could this change? Could americans of today become the terrorists of tomorrow. Check out this story and see how insane things are getting.

U.S. government now view protesting Americans as terrorists – You’re either with us or against us.

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.  Never heard of it.  That is because the U.S. Senate hasn’t yet passed it but the Obama government is trying to get it passed before the Egyptian revolution, for Change, Liberty and Social Justice lands on U.S. soil.  The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is a bill sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) in the 110th United States Congress.  Its stated purpose is to deal with “homegrown terrorism and violent radicalization”.

The bill will:

Amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).

In the bill 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.

This bill was passed in the House on October 23, 2007 with a vote of 404 to 6.  It was introduced to the Senate on August 2, 2007 as S-1959.  and has been referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The Bill was introduced by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), and has been co-sponsored by Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN).  The Senate bill was reported dead by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and CQ Politics.  A staffer to Sen. Joe Lieberman, indicated that the bill is not dead.

Critics charge that the vagueness of the bill’s definitions would permit the government to classify many types of venerated American political activity, such as civil disobedience (political dissent), as terrorism. Critics frequently cite Section 899A, which reads, in part: “The use, planned use, or threatened use, of force …to coerce the ..government, (or) civilian population ..in furtherance of political or social objectives”, as particularly problematic. They argue that major societal reforms, which are now accepted but were perceived at the time as threatening to the government, such as civil rights, suffrage, and others, would be classified as terrorism.

Then-presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich said he believed the bill to be “unconstitutional” and has referred to the bill as a “thought crime bill”  The Baltimore Sun published an opinion article by Professor Emeritus Ralph E. Shaffer and R. William Robinson, titled “Here come the thought police.”

Conservative commentator Devvy Kidd writes: “Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government…. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime.”

In an interview aired on Democracy Now, Academic and author Ward Churchill said: “HR 1955, as I understand it, provides a basis for subjective interpretation of dissident speech….”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued a statement saying: “Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme.”

The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers issued a joint statement opposing the Bill: “The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights opposes the bill.

The John Birch Society wrote in an Action Alert: “the legislation could attack First Amendment rights by mandating the government to clamp down on free speech online, among other things.”

In the wake of the successful Egyptian revolution against government oppression the Obama government is planning to reintroduce the bill and have it passed.  The U.S. government now fears the same fate as dictatorial ruler Hosni Mubarak.  The U.S. government fear that the U.S. people may soon echo the call of the Egyptian people and begin to petition for change.

The Declaration of Independence states that government derives its just – or lawful – powers from the “consent of the governed.” The underlying principle implied in the Declaration was that “We the People” are the true and rightful government of the United States, and as Abraham Lincoln declared in his Gettysburg Address, “government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from this earth.” Elected and appointed officials are managers selected to work on our behalf in order to accomplish our collective will. We do not, however, elect them to dictate what our will is, or should be.

However, in the event that government becomes one consisting of rulers rather than representatives, the U.S. government determined over 200 years ago what the course of action should be.

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…

In the event that Americans find themselves at odds with their government, the Declaration tells them:  “… 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 affect their Safety and Happiness.

According to the nation’s own foundational text, the American people have the right:  “… 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

What measures do the U.S. government seek to implement against the American people they now deem as terrorists?  The same power as Egyptian dictator Mubarak sought – to shut down all lines of communication.  The U.S. government is now working to reintroduce an Internet kill switch bill.   A bill handing President Obama power over privately owned computer systems during a “national cyberemergency,” and prohibiting any review by the court system.  The bill is being reworded to include government control of all wireless Internet (Wi-Fi).  Why does the U.S. government want to control Wi-Fi?  When the Egyptian government shut down the cable Internet Wi-Fi was used to keep the rest of the World apprised to what was happening in Egypt.  HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda. The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone who conveys dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of government is a potential terrorist.

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1273