It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Thinking for Yourself is Now a Crime--must read for ATS'ers

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:46 AM
I simply do not believe it! I can't imagine our American Government going to such extremes and getting away with it! I certainly hope they hunt me down and take me to court. Because you can be sure that I would find the best lawyer possible and show the facade what the consitution says. I have rights, rights to opinions and rights to express them.

Seriously, it won't happen, and if it ever does, it will be like illegal immigration there won't be enough manpower for the organization to be effective. Or is that just the governments excuse?

Well I will not let this snippet from an article scare me, I live in the United States and I am not afraid to have an opinion!

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:18 AM
thinking for yourself is now a crime

oh my gosh, here come the thought police!

please have your passport ready. oh wait, your from ATS. guards, arrest that man hes a thought criminal.

sorry, but it does sound kinda funny.
im off to do some research on how not to think for myself. oh crap, there i go.. thinking for myself again.

DARN IT! what a conundrum!

[edit on 6/1/08 by Obliv_au]

[edit on 6/1/08 by Obliv_au]

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 03:47 AM
After glancing over the language it just appears to be a "feel good" bill. Something to say to people "hey look we ARE doing our jobs". As for alternate means, a slight balance to the check that Bush gave the republican congress via the Patriot Act.

Many are to young to remember how the ATF was called the American SS. Even Bill Clinton said once that the people have no right to complain about law enforcement especially the ATF. Under AG Janet Reno, the ATF was commonly called "jack-booted thugs" over Waco, Ruby Ridge (the incident that prompted Clinton's tirad) and of course Elan Gonzalas.

While DHS was a much needed reorganisation of DOJ agencies it steamlined things too far such as US Customs and INS. ATF was the real winners as they had their negative image cleaned immediately and gained access to FBI, CIA and NSA information. As well as DEA agents that were well experienced in subterfuge in their own right.

While many things are exaggerated (much like the theme of this thread--sorry got to call it), the consolidation of agencies under direct control of the president does give an uneasy feeling of potential for a coup under the wrong hands. However given at the time of 9/11 the government needed a stronger, swifter power to prevent the other shoe from dropping.

The big fear comes from the sudden changing of the government's MO and lack of confidence in W's ability to control such power. Many of Bush's advisors go back to the Nixon era, stayed through Reagan and Bush Sr. But looking at the other side, so are many democrats including Hillary. Yep, look up footage of the Senete hearing on Nixon and there she is dressed like a hippy chic, always the slave to fads and fashion I suppose.

So the question is does DHS, executive orders, and the ability to unilaterally call Marshal Law give the president the power to stage a coup? No. Any president could all the way back Washington. Commander in Chief of all armed forces isn't just the five branches at the Pentagon. It includes all militias and paramilitary organisations too, such as state and local police and Blackwater. Civillian militias just have the luxurary to decline an order. Which is why the second ammendment is vital to remain a right of the people.

Read the Preamble closely. The government only has power by the permission of We the People. Failure for any president (or any other would be leader) must stand down went told to do so or face a disorganised but nonetheless overwelming force. For example, think of how large of a force it would take to reclaim control of the city if every punk with a 9mm decided to take over Detroit. Now compound that with every moderately large city doing the same with reports of about three masses of 5000 cars each heading towards DC?

Other than ordering nuclear (nuke-u-clar) strikes against the people, there would be no way to stop it. No. The government is not so powerful that it could prevent true rebellion of the dregs of society so it would be impossible win against upright citizens in an actual civil war. People like to point out Nazi Germany as how powerful a dictatorship could be and how easy it would be to install. But the reality is our ecconomic situation now is nowhere near what post WWI sanctions did to Germany while feeling the global fallout of the Great Depression.

My eye is firmly on Pakastan right now as they are far closer to pre-nazi germany if the American ecconomy should happen to collapse in a global scale like the Great Depression. What makes it really scary is many struggling countries have nukes and already dislike the US due to envy and our policies of the past 50 years. Add in a total tank of the dollar if the Euro can not completely cover it and the worldwide smackdown will be worse than what Alexander Haig felt when he skipped a couple steps in the order of presidental succession. Haig, now there is a guy that makes Cheney look like a pussycat.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 04:28 AM
This isn't legislation against "thinking". No one can control what you think or punish you for what you think. Yet. But this is a terrible attack on what we might do or say.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:14 AM
reply to post by palehorse23

I just had a thought. You really have to ask yourself though how many ATSers actually think for themselves? Rather than accept ideas based on the judgements of others. I have seen that in a few members I think.

Just a random thought.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:24 AM
You can think, Communism style.

My life has come full circle. I grew up in Communism and now i will most likely die in a Communism style regime.

What? We are not Communists? Hey, the principle is the same.

WTF!!! I hate swearing, but this one calls for it.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:25 AM
Well looks like this is the rise of the anti-christ possibly. Pretty soon you'll see us christians (not Pat Roberson followers, but people who actually try to live like Christ every now and then), rounded up and sent to them concentration camps that are poppin' up everywhere (including Texas somehow). I'm pre-trib, but I'm starting to lean towards post or mid-trib now from what I'm seeing.

Cause everyone knows, real christians are terroists. They try to help people in need and tell people that there is hope, what a hateful message of love and forgiveness we spread.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 05:39 AM

For Wilson, the saga started with credit-card problems. After launching the site, he began getting e-mails from soldiers who couldn't join because of bank-verification issues. So Wilson told them that if they could provide photographic proof that they were in Iraq, he'd let them on for free.

At first the photos he received were benign, such as soldiers posing by their tanks and barracks. But then came the gore. One picture shows a severed head floating in a bowl of blood. Another, a dismembered arm. A particularly gruesome photo shows a child with bloody pulp where his face used to be.

Though Wilson says he was shocked when he first saw the photos, he empathized with the soldiers' desire to show the realities of service. Rather than censoring the images, he created a separate forum for them, quoting a line from Life, when the magazine published war-dead photos during the Spanish Civil War: "Dead men have indeed died in vain if live men refuse to look at them."

Man arrested for posting pictures of dead Iraqis. Or for porn. Either way - totalitarian state.
Someday USA will be a totalitarian state in the open, it happens with little steps like this "homegrown terrorism" law

I mean little steps that build up, then one sudden leap - maybe another false flag attack. Just my paranoia

[edit on 6-1-2008 by pai mei]

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 07:39 AM

There are 3 other versions of this bill.
GPO's PDF Display Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status Printer Friendly Display - 17,864 bytes.[Help] XML Display

Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1955 IH


1st Session

H. R. 1955

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.


April 19, 2007

Ms. HARMAN (for herself and Mr. REICHERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007'.


(a) In General- Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 361 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle:

`Subtitle J--Prevention of Homegrown Terrorism


`For purposes of this subtitle:

`(1) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- 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.

`(2) RADICALIZATION- The term `radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) IDEOLOGICALLY-BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically-based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.


`The Congress finds the following:

`(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent homegrown terrorism in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

`(2) The promotion of ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

`(3) The Internet has aided in facilitating ideologically-based violence and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.

`(4) While the United States must continue its vigilant efforts to combat international terrorism, it must also strengthen efforts to combat the threat posed by homegrown terrorists based and operating within the United States.

`(5) Understanding the motivational factors that lead to homegrown terrorism is a vital step toward eradicating these threats in the United States.

`(6) The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions.

`(7) Individuals prone to ideologically-based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion.

`(8) Any measure taken to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents.

`(9) Certain governments, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia have significant experience with homegrown terrorism and the United States can benefit from lessons learned by those nations.


`(a) Establishment- Subject to the requirements of this section, the Secretary shall establish a grant program to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States.

`(b) Grants Authorized- The Secretary may award grants to States to enhance homeland security by preventing radicalization and homegrown terrorism in at-risk populations, as determined by the Secretary.

`(c) Purpose- The purpose of the grant program is to prevent, disrupt, and mitigate the effects of radicalization and prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States.

`(d) Grant Eligibility- Any State shall be eligible to apply for a grant under the program referred to in paragraph (a).

`(e) Use of Funds- Grants awarded under this section shall be used by the States to award to agencies and organizations, including but not limited to, social services agencies, community-based groups, educational institutions and non-governmental organizations as sub-grantees to address radicalization and homegrown terrorism by--

`(1) developing best practices, standards and protocols to conduct outreach to various populations that are at-risk for radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(2) assisting with educational outreach, social services, and integration into society;

`(3) program planning and management and strategy formulation and strategic planning;

`(4) promote civic engagement and community outreach programs;

`(5) any other uses determined by the Secretary to be necessary to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(f) Prohibited Uses- Funds provided as a grant may not be used--

`(1) for law enforcement activities, except for programs that include outreach activities;

`(2) to supplant State or local funds;

`(3) to construct buildings or other physical facilities;

`(4) to acquire land; or

`(5) for any State or local government cost-sharing contribution.


there's more to this thing, and there's three other versions of it and I only checked the one. but, to me, it seems to be just another good thing to blow money they don't have on, nothing more. the grants can't be used for law enforcement, so well, it does't provide funding to anything with these new free-thinking "terrorists".
sounds to me to be just them trying to get a handle on the problem, they have no idea where they are going with it really....
money to study!!

[edit on 6-1-2008 by dawnstar]

hopefully the quote isn't too long, but well, I would have liked to have made it longer, but you wouldn't believe the trouble my computer was giving me to get that much....maybe my son is upstairs on his playing with me, don't know. it wasn't till I shortened the quote and posted it once, that I was able to finish the post. but, anywho, if it's too long, maybe one of the mods can shorten it to a more acceptable lentgh. It's just that when we are discussing bills that up in congress, it's more helpful to have the bill in front of you to read instead of some "extremist's"...
...take on it...

which leads me to the problem I have with it, who defines what's "extremist"
who knows, maybe I am extremist when I say that the employers should be paying their employees enough to put food on the table, a roof over their head, and medical care if they need instead of relying on us taxpayers to subsidize their payrolls...I have no idea.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by dawnstar]

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:02 AM
1984! Yes! Party! Thoughtcrime! Vaporization! Big Brother is watching you! Hahahaha! Bring it on!

Seriously, Orwell was a genius. I'am not surprised right now that I have never heard any teacher speak of 1984. Our whole society is collapsing, and I wouldn't be surprised if the rapture or anything similar occured tomorrow.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:44 AM
the govt calls them home grown terrorists.... who do they think plant and water these terrorists????

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 08:46 AM
I got this at

My take is it is another government job opportunity for someones friend. Starting salary of 84,000 to 94,000.

The below speaks for its self.



`(a) In General- The Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described herein shall not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

`(b) Commitment to Racial Neutrality- The Secretary shall ensure that the activities and operations of the entities created by this subtitle are in compliance with the Department of Homeland Security's commitment to racial neutrality.

`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by inserting at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:38 AM
Xtrozero, I like your perspective of this, hope this is really what it's all about. I'm just completely bored to death (tho not literally
) with this particular Administration and how the People have had to just stand and watch the Constitution snipped one small piece at at time to bits.

What if everyone who disagrees with the present state of the Bush Show simply stood against the grain, so to speak, by nurturing a strong personal positive attitude that this great country (and UK, those in Australia, others . . you, as well) would soon return to greatness, much like the principle of belief presented in The Secret. I'm not yet a die-hard evangelist for that approach to immediate problem-solving (as in "today, right now!" needs), yet the long-term premise of it I do strongly believe in. For those who read Proverbs, "as a man thinketh, so is he." I borrow from that to say, "as a country thinketh, so is it."

I watched the Dems debate last night, and one of the candidates remarked (i think it was Obama) something like, whatever the American people want ends up happening, ultimately. What if we all simply took the next evil bit of news against us from DC with a grain of salt, and decided to passionately believe the opposite? Does not the collective energy pose a threat to the destructive energy? If not, then why are they attempting to halt peaceful dissent?

Right now, it appears to me that most everyone is living in fear. And what kind of energy is most prevalent?


posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by jimmyjackblack

Doesn't pre-trib happen right at the Peace Treaty signing? Since that's not even within public view, just yet, from what I can see, all this right now is just the beginning of sorrow. Yes, it's rough, but still seems to me to be just the beginning. I don't think God has appointed you (or me
) for that time of trouble which is to come upon the whole world.

My first recommendation: trust Whom you serve, be at peace

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 12:52 PM
Well, I know this probably will not be taken well, but luckily some of you younger people I guess were not around this country - say like 40 years ago. Yes, there are the people who wonder about other people. Mainly like during the times of Pres. Kennedy Assasination where some people wanted to be political like being in a Communist Party or Nazi Party running around not wanting to be really known. The problem may be, noone really knows what it was that they were actually trying or wanting to do. I guess amongst some people who had families it was - you single people - are just weird.

So the phrase at the time was -- "Off the Wall". (well, actually some younger people back then thought that they were actually off the wall, and weird for not having some humor and fun during life. That was about it. And some of it was funny and some people did not like some of the humor. I mean pulling down your pants and backing your butt up against a window was funny to them, while others just wanted to kind of really not be with them at the time and doing some weird things just for laughter -- again mainly because -- of the times.) There were no computers, people perhaps drank more booze, but it really was not malicious actually but having fun, I guess for some.

Well, there were others in this Country and during the Cold War these people were 'found' out about because of political association. Now, I am just supposin' here but even like the debate on ABC News Saturday of all the current political candidates, there probably are some that would want to really know about the other political candidates. Fine, Ron Paul actually was the only candidate that got a slight applause - even when the audience was told to hold all that kind of stuff to after all the debate was over. The ABC News team or personnel really did not want to waste time with people applaulding any particular candidate but actually keeping the debate going and not wasting time due to the audience acting out, per say. That all went well, and those candidates were all left to interact with one another or answer the questions posed. It was more of an open design, and the candidates may talk more or less, but all have kind of an equal amount of time to tell about what they would do if Elected.

So, I bet like before, and actually it may have been worse, there is always files being made especially if someone is in a position of what would be constituted as National Security. Albert Einstein was one of those people because he was not born in this Country, and he was a well-known scientist amongst many, but you can look it up -- the FBI had a file on him just like they do on others. I guess you are suppose to imagine that even in Congress, a little research has been done to all those people about whom they have known in the Past, or not, and what if any conversations took place, what it really was about. You see, some of these or at the time those people really did not tell anyone that they really were Communists or Nazis or anything else. They were devious, and anytime people are in a group such as going on like that -- the Government is going to find out if there is a threat to this Government of this Country. Do not kid yourself, many other Governments may actually be worse, and anyone of the world Governments is going to protect its self, even if it seems weird to some.

That is what then was termed as "Backing Someone Up Against the Wall" just to make sure I guess and because some people think they can do that -- whether it is for the job or the business or whatever the case may be.

The current example would be illegal immigrants. Sorry if you are walking around with someone;s elses ID or as such and getting a job just as such -- it is really against the laws of this Country. So therefore, actually, any illegal immigrant is going to have a file if they are known about - to actually see what they may be up to. And that will be that.

So those were the phrases used "You are Off the Wall" and then some people wanted to "Back You Up Against the Wall". Well, most of that did not work anyway, because then some people wanted to end up "Backing Those Type of People Against the Wall".

I try and ignore most of it, unless it really affects me, and well until the Actions which actually no one has unless there is something going on, and the person may be charged for illegal activity -- I just call it what it is, and what it appears to me -- some people thinking that it is their job, whether employed by the Federal Government or not.

It does get carried away sometimes, because especially at the time of the Cold War, and lately also -- there are spys in this Country, and well, some people in sensitive positions may be approached by radical or devious other people and in a sense threatened and not really know what to do and then fear and then perhaps end up doing dumb things. I sure you all have heard about Chinese people working sometimes in sensitive positions and lately how they were approached. Sorry, the only other approach known as far as I know, and I really do not, is that this Country would actually change into not being as "Free" and more of a "Dictatorship" in a sense, or more nowadays like "Radical Islam" instead of being concerned with being "Free" for all the rest of the majority of the people.

So no matter how it all seems, there is nothing really new here:

Move along, move along, do not loiter, do not loiter.

But at least some of the debate from the political candidates was about lobbyists, and the money, and all of that kind of stuff when it was on just the other night. And about some Special Interest Groups.

Well, again, political candidates are political candidates, so all can suppose of what some of those political candidates really do actually think, and not what they really say.

Dr. Paul did slam the entire mess, but it was glossed over though! And made out not to be as real as what it seems to him and some others in this Country.

I am not in any of that type of field of work, and if anyone wants to be then that is up to them, but a job is a job, and no one actually stated that anyone has to really like a job to work for a living, but again I guess because of money, it all has to be done. Let's all not try and jump off of a cliff about any of it then.

I surely will not and others have not, in fact in their own way, they have done a little about it. Call it a computer game, or whatever.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by OptionToChoose
Xtrozero, I like your perspective of this, hope this is really what it's all about. I'm just completely bored to death (tho not literally
) with this particular Administration and how the People have had to just stand and watch the Constitution snipped one small piece at at time to bits.

Ya, I'm ready for change too

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 01:36 PM
reply to post by Xtrozero

This is clearly a bill to convince us they are doing something. The only product of this Act appears to be spending more money on yet another Think Tank. Its meaning is null as acts of violence are already dealt with under or current legal system. Commit an act of violence and go to jail. What further is needed. Just busy work.

Its good to see some here read before they respond.

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:06 PM
As others have pointed out, this is a clear example of someone reading the title of a bill and leaping to conclusions without ever reading it. I know people want this to be a reenactment the Communist Hearings, but no matter how much you want it this bill won't deliver it to you. Nothing to see here - just another bill that establishes a committee with no actual power directed at analyzing people who use FORCE OR VIOLENCE to promote a ideology. It doesn't grant power to the committee to do anything but analyze findings and produce a report.

Don't want to be analyzed? It's easy...don't be violent in your promotion of your ideology. And here is a thought - "thinking for yourself" and telling others to do so through violence has ALWAYS been a crime.

[edit on 6-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:28 PM

Go ahead and try to take away my first amendment rights to free speech and free thinking. Thats the day when I act upon my second amendment rights and defend the constitution like I took an oath to do against enemies domestic.

Remember folks, they're are more of us than employed by the government. They have no chance of holding you prisoner if you act in MASSIVE numbers.


posted on Jan, 6 2008 @ 02:35 PM
This is nothing new the government is / has created a bogeyman to extend the powers of control over the people. Back when I was growing up it was communisms spread of the free world. Hence we wound up with McCarthyism
where every one was a communist and many people were questioned before congress or even jailed because they refused to give up the names of friends or family that the government wanted. Hence the Koren war, Vietnam, Afghanistan,Iraq, who is next?

Joseph Goebbels Propaganda Minster of the Nazi Party said
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

[edit on 6-1-2008 by Wing-nut]

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in