If this bill is passed, and becomes law, your words and actions could be considered terrorism. 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.
Contact your Senator and let them know they will be looking for another job if they vote yes on this bill, which is now introduced into the Senate as S.1959 THIS BILL **MUST NOT** BECOME LAW, PERIOD.
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).
Senate is back in session today, do not hesitate, call, fax, email your Senator ASAP.
Click here for your Senators contact info: www.senate.gov
Scary. Every scary. Just who is thinking up these bills?
Most likely people who prefer to be politically correct, instead of simply being correct. There's no room for political correctness when waging war.
Instead of simply profiling (male, Muslim, from Middle East, or something like that), the lawmakers think that all citizens must suffer along with the real terrorists, just to be politically correct.
Israel has been under Jihadist attacks for decades, ever since the creation of their country. Do they have all these security lines in airports and similar places? I hear that they don't. And the reason is simple: they do profiling.
What if the Arabs complain? Well, it's their fault for not controlling their racial brothers. It's no one else's fault. They should complain and put the blame on the terrorists who happen to be of their race. Or better yet, they should go after them themselves.
I still have to see the video (10 minutes is a 1 hour download in dial-up ).
This was written way back 2002, almost right after 9/11:
If the profile fits ...
By Ann Coulter
Thursday, January 10, 2002
An Arab with a copy of "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" and a gun boarded an American Airlines plane on Christmas Day claiming to be a Secret Service agent on his way to the president. There was a problem with his paperwork, and the pilot and flight attendants were concerned. After an hour's negotiation – rudely ignoring the travel needs of the rest of the passengers – they decided to fly without the armed Arab, who caught another flight the next day.
This much is conceded by all parties. Four months ago, 19 Arab men armed with less ostentatious weapons than guns boarded four commercial aircraft in the United States and as a direct consequence, thousands of Americans are now dead. Hundreds more narrowly averted being blown up midflight last month on an American Airlines flight from Paris involving another Muslim terrorist. On account of being delayed for a day, the Secret Service agent, Walied Shater, charged that the airline singled him out because he is an Arab. Never mind the gun. Pursuing his paranoid fantasy, he immediately hired a lawyer and is demanding an apology and a pledge that American Airlines crew be subjected to sensitivity training classes. Naturally, he hasn't ruled out monetary damages.
This man should not be allowed near the president with a loaded gun. At the least, he's an immature nut. At worst, he's a ticking time bomb, in a simmering rage at America's supposed mistreatment of Muslims. These alleged civil liberties concerns have only one purpose: to give Muslims a cushion for another attack on America.
There is no principled basis for opposition to using Arab appearance as a factor in airport screening procedures. Sadly, there is even less reason to believe this is what the airlines do. In some goo-goo-minded attempt to prove they are not profiling, the airlines make a big show of harassing precisely those passengers they should be ignoring. This ought to warm the hearts of Muslims in Saudi Arabia. Too bad they'll never read about it since their newspapers are too busy polishing the theory that Zionists bombed the World Trade Center.
According to the FAA – the federal agency keeping our airports running like Swiss clocks these days – in November and December alone, 30 airport terminals were entirely evacuated. Passengers on 434 airliners were ordered off for re-screening. Solely because of "security" precautions, 1,180 flights have been delayed, 464 flights have been canceled, and 15 diverted to alternative destinations.
An elderly white congressman was ordered to strip to his underwear because of a steel hip joint. Asian women, elderly black men, stewardesses, toddlers and cowboys are forced to remove their shoes for special screening. Women travelers are being asked to remove their bras and are having their jewelry stolen by thugs in airport security.
Not one of the passengers described above – who were delayed, canceled, evacuated, strip-searched, robbed and humiliated – was attempting to carry a loaded gun on an airplane. So it's not going to be easy proving Walied was treated worse than the average air traveler. Yet Islamic advocacy groups have identified the incident with the Secret Service agent as "the most extreme example" among "a string of abuses by the airlines."
Even the Supreme Court was never this crazy. To the contrary, in a 1975 case called United States vs. Brignoni-Ponce, the court held that the "Mexican appearance" of a car's occupants could be considered by border police stopping cars near the Mexican border to look for illegal aliens. This was back in the halcyon days when the court was inventing new and preposterous "rights" every other day. But even that court didn't invent a right not to have one's ethnic appearance considered a factor in creating reasonable suspicion. Rather, the court noted: "The government has estimated that 85 percent of the aliens illegally in the country are from Mexico." Meanwhile, 100 percent of the successful terrorist attacks on commercial airlines for 20 years have been committed by Arabs.
When there is a 100 percent chance, it ceases to be a profile. It's called a "description of the suspect." This is not a psychological judgment about an ethnic group – it is an all-points bulletin: Warning! The next terrorist to board a commercial flight will be an Arab or Muslim male. If ethnic appearance can be used as a factor by the police trying to stem the dire threat of one more Mexican raking leaves in Los Angeles, it is logical to conclude that ethnic appearance can also be used to counter the threat of thousands of Americans being killed in a terrorist attack. Had airport security spent a little less time angrily shaking down every little old lady trying to sneak tweezers onto an airplane, American Airlines might have had sufficient time to attend to Walied's gun paperwork.
Has that ever happened in the US? Does the Oklahoma bombing even qualify?
Sounds like a bill going after an imaginary or non-existent problem?
Quote:
‘‘16 (7) Individuals prone to violent radicalization,
17 homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based vio
18 lence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs,
19 and individuals should not be targeted based solely
20 on race, ethnicity, or religion."
I don't know who Ron Paul is, but am concerned about this thing I came across:
Gerry
While I don’t agree with everything that Ron Paul has to say. However when it comes to interpreting the constitution he is the only candidate that I see who truly believes that it is a meaningful document and that we should actually follow it when forming government policy. For me this puts him head and shoulders above all the other candidates.
The other candidates like to give lip service to the constitution and tell us how great it is and how lucky we are to have it but then they will turn around and vote for something like S1959.
Do you understand what S.1959 will do if passed?
).
Hybrid Mode
