HR 1955 - Thought Crime Prevention Act passes 404-6

[Taco John]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9wJsovPRTEM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9wJsovPRTEM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Bronco_Beerslug]

HR 1955 - Thought Crime Prevention Act passes 404-6The correct name of the bill is H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 but what's your point? This bill passed the house (not the Senate) back in Oct. of 2007.

Below is a summarization of the bill...

-----------------------------------------------------
The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
4/19/2007--Introduced.

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends 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).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

-------------------------------------------
Bill Status (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955)
Sponsor:
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]

Cosponsors [as of 2007-12-10]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Norman ***** [D-WA]
Rep. Al Green [D-TX]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.

Cost: < $1 per American over the 2008-2012 period?
The cost is estimated from a Congressional Budget Office report, by dividing the estimated cost of implementing the legislation by the U.S. population. It is of course just a gross estimate.

Status:
Introduced Apr 19, 2007
Scheduled for Debate Aug 1, 2007
Passed House [details] Oct 23, 2007
Voted on in Senate -
Signed by President -

This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Dec 9, 2007]
Last Action:
Oct 24, 2007: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Show All Related Votes

[Bronco Bob]

Sure are a lot of "D"s next to the names of the sponsors.

[defenseman]

And what is the "real" mission behind the mission of this bill? Anyone care to guess?...dman

[Bronco Bob]

And what is the "real" mission behind the mission of this bill? Anyone care to guess?...dman

I'm just thinking Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon would have loved
to have had a law like this to work with when they had to deal with
the anti Vietnam war protesters.

[Dead Head]

Unconstitutional.

[alkemical]

****ers

[defenseman]

****ers

Yep, stand by for another bill that further broadens the gap between the two major political parties and gives them another method by which the tax payers money is wasted. This is disgraceful, they all should be fired, every single one of them...dman

[Meck77]

****ers

Hmm not sure you are allowed to say that anymore. Look out for the black van dude.

*edit* I guess I could be viewed as a threat now and jailed for standing up for property rights against abusive eminent domain by local governments.



God Bless the USA....

[alkemical]

Hmm not sure you are allowed to say that anymore. Look out for the black van dude.

*edit* I guess I could be viewed as a threat now and jailed for standing up for property rights against abusive eminent domain by local governments.



God Bless the USA....

actually, the moment you quoted my post - you became "suspicious"

[Meck77]

I can see this going in the direction just like Kelo vs New London did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1], was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development.




Everyone was asleep when the federal government passed it and now we Americans are fighting back to repeal it state by state. The problem now is I wonder if we even have the right to protest against it without being jailed. I'm not sure.

[defenseman]

404-6? My question is, who voted "nay" on this bill? That is important to know. Everyone else, should be relieved of all further duties and responsibilities and summarily sent home.......dman

[Meck77]

404-6? My question is, who voted "nay" on this bill? That is important to know. Everyone else, should be relieved of all further duties and responsibilities and summarily sent home.......dman

No kidding. Where can we get this info. I would like to know as well.

Ok Ron Paul didn't vote as he was out of town but he's on record that he would have voted NO.

The guy may not be perfect but he doesn't follow the sheep.



http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr120507h.htm




Remarks on Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, HR 1955

5 December 2007

Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Madame Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”

I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”

There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.

This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.

This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.

In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.

Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.

[Meck77]

Ok here you go Dman.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993

[defenseman]

thanks meck. A group " you're fired" email is in order now..dman

[Bronco LB 59]

Jeff Flake rocks. His name was on that list of nays along with Dennis Kucinich.

[Dead Head]

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

[Meck77]

Ok upon further review this still has to pass the senate. There is still time for common sense to prevail. I doubt it will unless Americans rise up in great numbers. Of course the problem with that is you might just get rounded up after the bill passes!

[Bronco LB 59]

Senator Obama is for this legislation:

http://www.indypendent.org/2007/12/10/obama-supports-homegrown-terrorism-bill/

[Bronco LB 59]

Ok upon further review this still has to pass the senate. There is still time for common sense to prevail. I doubt it will unless Americans rise up in great numbers. Of course the problem with that is you might just get rounded up after the bill passes!

No kidding! I will write my Senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein regarding my outrage over this bill, but I know it's going to fall on deaf ears and I will probably get some B.S. response from their intern. This is seriously ****ed up.

[Meck77]

I'm in contact with local law makers over my eminent domain situation on a daily basis these days. They are really scrambling to take sides on the issue here in Denver. Anyhow I will will add 1955 into the mix during my conversations with them as well. We need more people to do the same.

[tsiguy96]

wow, the conspirator theorists are right. this law will pass the senate easily and you KNOW GWB will sign it as fast as he can.

add this to the national ID card and the patriot act, were ****ed. thats all there is to it.

[baja]

The correct name of the bill is H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 but what's your point? This bill passed the house (not the Senate) back in Oct. of 2007.

Below is a summarization of the bill...

-----------------------------------------------------
The following summary is provided by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan government entity that serves Congress and is run by the Library of Congress. The summary is taken from the official website THOMAS.
4/19/2007--Introduced.

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends 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).
Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

-------------------------------------------
Bill Status (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955)
Sponsor:
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]

Cosponsors [as of 2007-12-10]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA]
Del. Donna Christensen [D-VI]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. Charles Dent [R-PA]
Rep. Norman ***** [D-WA]
Rep. Al Green [D-TX]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA]
Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA]
Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS]

Cosponsorship information sometimes is out of date.

Cost: < $1 per American over the 2008-2012 period?
The cost is estimated from a Congressional Budget Office report, by dividing the estimated cost of implementing the legislation by the U.S. population. It is of course just a gross estimate.

Status:
Introduced Apr 19, 2007
Scheduled for Debate Aug 1, 2007
Passed House [details] Oct 23, 2007
Voted on in Senate -
Signed by President -

This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Dec 9, 2007]
Last Action:
Oct 24, 2007: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Show All Related Votes

Damn!

I going to check out a much more rural part of Mexico next month with a friend that has lived in the area all his life. There is good water and and good soil there. My plan is to buy a large piece of land with it's own water source and build small adobe houses (about 1200 sq ft) and sell them at near cost to friends. Any of you that would like a nice retreat style home in a neighborhood with like thinking people please PM me and I will contact you when I am ready to take the next step. Not kidding about this.

[Meck77]

I don't blame you Baja but we have work to do back here in America and there are those of us who will do it.

However if you are looking for stability/safety I don't think remote areas of Mexico are going to be safe places for Americans when we Americans really take bold steps on illegal immigration. There is going to be a backlash in Mexico.

[baja]

I don't blame you Baja but we have work to do back here in America and there are those of us who will do it.

However if you are looking for stability/safety I don't think remote areas of Mexico are going to be safe places for Americans when we Americans really take bold steps on illegal immigration. There is going to be a backlash in Mexico.

I am very concerned about that and that is the main reason I want out of the Baja.

It's going to get very nasty for American people here. Long standing friendships will not help when the illegal immigration situation plays out and people are forced back to mexico. it will be devastating for Mexico and Americans living here will pay a heavy price.

[defenseman]

Ok upon further review this still has to pass the senate. There is still time for common sense to prevail. I doubt it will unless Americans rise up in great numbers. Of course the problem with that is you might just get rounded up after the bill passes!

Still reason to take action on the stupidity in the congress, wouldn't you agree. I cannot believe congress had the nads to send this up to the senate to be honest. All but six need to given their "walking papers", and I have just the plank they can walk off...dman

[baja]

On the "work to do" comment I would say it just might be advantageous to have a home base outside the US borders.

[Taco John]

Jeff Flake rocks. His name was on that list of nays along with Dennis Kucinich.


I've been following him for a little while now. So far, I like what I see.