Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 1:29 AM:
Wheels mentioned this topic a few weeks ago. I don't write much anymore, but I just have to vent on this one. Commonsensematters labeled those of us paranoid who say that the government has been passing laws which restrict and eventually will eliminate all of our freedom. Who really are the paranoid ones Common? The people or the government? And no the people are not the government and haven't been for a long time, but that is for another day to discuss.
Commonsense Wrote:
For most of the more sensible participants this should dispel the paranoia...
"Posted by Gabe Rottman, Washington Legislative Office at 11:56am
"Recent days have seen significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.
"The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.
"It's important to note -- contrary to some reports -- that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.
These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).
"The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.
"H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.
"Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 21, 2012, at 7:56 AM
Replies (19)
Common, you failed to mention that Gabe Rottman is an ACLU attorney. The ACLU is nothing more than another "controlled opposition" organization used by the government to manage and control dissent. The ACLU is a group of attorneys who tout themselves, along with being touted by the government controlled leftist media, as being the champions and watchdogs of our civil liberties. The ACLU is also used as a whipping boy distraction by the government controlled right wing media, which I won't go into now.
It is amazing to me Common that you would use Rottman's feeble attempt to defend another incremental assault on our civil liberties. He didn't dispel anything. In fact this arrogant slime ball traitorous ACLU attorney reinforces the fact that H.R. 347 is a another nail in the coffin containing our loss of freedom. Read his words again Common and notice his veiled disclaimers and do it without your Obama blinders on. To be fair, the Bush apologists had their blinders on too when Bush was passing laws to restrict our freedom and continue to bankrupt this country. Obama is Bush in hyper-drive.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 1:30 AM
If the ACLU were not controlled opposition, then they would have been screaming about stopping H.R. 347. Instead they lamely defend it like Rottman did and make their duped liberal supporters feel that all is well cause the ACLU gives the stamp of approval. At least that's more than the conservative talking head champions of freedom, like Limbaugh-O'Reily-Hannity, et al did. They barely if at all mentioned this despicable law. Obama was so proud of this titled "improvement act" that he signed it in the darkness of night. If this was a law to be proud of and which provided for the good of the 99%, then what is the significance of signing it in the dark of night? Because wicked people do wicked things in the day light surely, but I believe they get a more perverse sense of enjoyment when they ritually do them at night. That's why.
I suppose we should be grateful though, in a gallows humor way, that this restriction of assembly and free speech legislation the congress passed and Obama later signed in the dead of night is less horrifying than the previous legislation he signed at Midnight, New Years Eve; The NDAA.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows at the whim of the Commander in Chief or God knows what ever aggrieved government official to direct the military to burst in to your home or anywhere, put a bag over your head , and detain you forever without a court review or the council of an attorney because you have been deemed a terrorist and enemy of the state . Well technically they can't hold you "forever", just until the end of the war however long that may be. How in Sam Hill can the ACLU be a party to that? Sure they put out some serious sounding words like all controlled opposition activists do. Words like: ( name the group) is "concerned, or "troubled", or" watchful", words like that. Words that sound like they mean something substantive , but are just excess noise.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 1:32 AM
It slipped my mind that the ACLU was not bothered much when Obama and his "Justice" Department decided it was legal to kill a U.S. Citizen named Anwar al-Awlaki with a drone attack because it was too bothersome or difficult to arrest him. Even some conservaties applauded this becasue we were told al-Awlaki was a really bad person and he deserved to die.
Even if you agree with the killing of al-Awlaki, couldn't you at least imgine how a dictator could use that justification in the future to kill any citizen any where on Earth because it was too bothersome or politically risky to arrest him for trial?
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 1:59 AM
When any political organization gains power; it immediately begins to seek out ways to move its agenda forward. If it cannot persuade enough of the opposition party to swap votes for influence, it assigns lawyers to seek out loopholes which will allow it to accomplish its purposes. Presidents of both parties have used executive orders and the alphabet-soup agencies to bypass the legislative branch and expand upon the constitutional powers of the executive branch.
The constitutional checks and balances built into our government do not work as well as the authority of the executive branch expands. Politicians of either party do not attempt to limit these power grabs because their personal ambition is to be in a position to benefit from this corrupted system. As government expands its power and reach, the rights and liberties of individuals and businesses operating in the private sector are limited.
Over a period of time, the power and privilege of politicians and government officials is given priority over the rights of the individual. That which was meant to serve and protect individual liberty becomes the greatest violator of individual rights.
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 10:29 AM
Judge Napolitano said pretty much what you just acurately stated Robert. This was either his last or next to last sign-offs from his T.V. show on Fox business.
No doubt Fox was told to get him off the air because he said so many things that punched the ruling establishment in the gut. A tyrannical government just can't allow that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 6:43 PM
Are you saying that Judge Neapolitano has lost his show as a result of his opinions? That would be a shame! I have never followed him or read his books but I have appreciated his opinions. There are many ways to control free thought and the expression of that thought in our modern world.
I WILL follow up on this and be sure to pay more heed to what the judge has to say in the future. BTW, I have missed your presence on these threads. I can't say that I always agree with you but you do tend to provoke my thoughts!
-- Posted by Robert* on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 8:43 PM
Robert, I obviously can't prove he was let go for his opinions, but i highly suspect it. No one else on television except for some guests on C-span said the things the judge said. Fox News just like all conventional media controls speech when people stray too far from the approved narrative.
I would never expect anyone to agree with everything I say and I would never claim to be the final word on what I write. All I ever intend is for people to try to think outside of the propaganda cage that the ruling elite have masterfully and diabolically created.
I have formed my alternative views to the left vs right sideshow over 40 years. One of my early old timer mentors told me that if everyone always agrees with you, then you are not doing your job to provoke unconventional thought.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, May 13, 2012, at 9:49 PM
TC, I too have missed your profound thinking.
Seems to me government propaganda and control of what we heard became so successful regarding the execution of WWII that many were conditioned and ripe to be part of an easily manipulated herd mentality. Within the '60s, the progessive infiltraters seeking control and infliction of their ideology saw and acted on the opportunity to implement their agenda of a socialist state.
I once questioned why, when such ends would take far beyond any one's lifetime, could such an agenda be logical.
I have come to the conclusion that evil does exist as a entity with goals above and beyond a simple fear of loss, hope to gain logic understood by a free people.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 12:28 AM
A truism I learned from my Grahndmother:
"Evil is of such frightful mean
to be hated needs but to be seen
But seen too often, familiar with it face
We first endure, then welcome, then embrace."
-- Posted by voyager on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 6:46 AM
Voyager
Glad to see you listed your dear Grandmother as the source.... you're safe from prosecution another day.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 8:01 AM
One thing I see as a selective reporting suspect of government urging is a story being reported now as some big bank making a stupid investment and losing a large sum.
The bank is in the business of making investments.
Our government makes stupider bad investments all the time losing much bigger sums and we hear little about that from the top of the hour headlines.
We hear little about the scheme to invest tax payer yet to be collected government money in an unneeded unwanted high speed railway to nowhere, but when an investment bank takes a risk and loses, we hear all about it.
Sounds like a coordinated effort to plant a big bank, big business bad, evil greedy CEOs thought in the mind of the public.
Ok, my point could be better articulated but hopefully I got it across.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 11:05 AM
I understand what you mean, OJ.
Government invest billions in 'green energy' companies which go belly up, costing the tax payer. That is OK.
Company makes a bad investment. Investigate the bankers, create new regulations. Charge bankers with greed and fraud.
Or something like that.
Not to excuse either one. but to point out the difference in which the government and the media approach the two.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 11:38 AM
Part of the reason for the drone strikes; this allows the administration to gain the political advantage of continuing the 'war on terror' while at the same time reducing the back lash from liberal voters over the number of our service men and women lost in that war.
Consider two factors.
1. Each of these drone strikes, even if successful, results in collateral damage. Innocent people lose their lives. And each of these deaths causes a certain amount of hard feelings toward the US. So we rid ourselves of one or more present enemies while creating ill will among whole families. At some time, if not already, we will suffer this reaction in a direct way.
2. In at least one instance, a US citizen and his teen-age son (also a US citizen) lost his life. In this instance, the President of the United States in effect declared himself judge, jury, and executioner. This IS a problem.
Although many absolve him because of the circumstances, it is possible that this is a violation of their constitutional rights.
I believe in individual rights and liberties as guaranteed by the constitution. I also believe in the sovereignty of the United States. But, if I believe in our national sovereignty I must also stand up for the national sovereignty of other nations. With present technology it is possible for other nations to execute drone strikes within this country. What would be our reaction if Mexico (for example) chose to take out someone in our border states with a drone strike? And if some of our civilians were killed in a strike against a drug kingpin? There is a flesh and blood war going on at this time on our southern border.
We have opened Pandora's box!
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 12:15 PM
Robert*, I think it comes down to who's calling the shots. An argument can be made for restricting rent-a-mobs from disrupting an otherwise peaceful political speech. I remember the the G8 thing a while back somewhere in the northeast [was it Seattle?] when a bunch of thugs akin to the occupy people were out of line.
This recent thing gives authority to secret service to determine who is exercising free speech and who is a security risk. I'm not sure and someone may want to educate me, but I think the executive branch is boss of secret service.
This leads me to think it could ripen into government control of election campaigning a step further than main stream media manipulation.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 7:09 PM
OJ,
One of the things which disturbs me about political tactics we are discussing on other threads is the reasoning by which politicians justify their methods. I admit no one has openly stated this; but it seems to me that those who use character assassination feel that they are in the right and that 'the end justifies the means'.
How does the old saying go? 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. As we allow more power to be grabbed by the executive branch of government we cause the built in checks and balances of constitutional government to be corrupted. I am not necessarily pointing my finger at the present administration. Don't take my next statement that way.
If we allow one group of people to decide what is free speech and what is not, ultimately that group will use that power to benefit itself or its political supporters. We must always be careful of allowing anyone or any group to tamper with our constitutional rights. I know that in a time when people fear for their safety and the safety of their families the temptation is there to trade anything for the promise of security. That is the time when the people lose their liberty and corrupt forces take over.
It happened in Nazi Germany and it CAN happen here.
-- Posted by Robert* on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 11:49 PM
In case it may have been overlooked, -- Posted by Robert* on Mon, May 14, 2012, at 11:49 PM makes a lot of sense!
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, May 15, 2012, at 12:54 PM
Dr. Doom, it took me many years just to half way convince people that both political parties are basically the same and work for the same masters and that the president no matter who it is, is a tool of the controllers. Some topics I got hammered on for being crazy on this same forum 4 years ago are now basically talked about as common knowledge and that is a good thing.
So I'm not about to get in to the topics you mentioned here in this forum even though I have read extensively about them and have listened to many hours of people presenting their findings and I probably agree with many things that you do about these subjects. I am going to post an email soon if you would like to talk about them that way. Also I can direct you to other websites, talk shows, authors, etc. for more info. You probably are already aware of some of them by what you have said.
One piece of advice I would like to pass on Dr. Doom as a fellow seeker of knowledge, is the old saying "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. I don't always follow that, but I try. Most people aren't anywhere near ready to even think about the things you just talked about. But be patient. Some day many will be more receptive. I have found that people are more likely to listen to my point of view when I don't pound them over the head with the info. Another piece of advice I can give you Dr. Doom is use a spell checker. I do. I have a good vocabulary, but I am a terrible speller. It is more likely that people will take you more seriously when the spelling is correct.
I present what I think and try to back it up without being too judgmental of them and I always hold out the possibility of me being wrong. It's frustrating sure when you would like people to understand what you believe quicker. Some people will never agree with you and that's o.k., and some people will just take longer and that's o.k. too because you have to agree that this subject matter is way beyond topics talked about on here. Also remember that no matter how gloomy the research you come across is, try your best to stay positive because if you stay bummed out and negative, the elite have won.
And by the way, I admire most of David Icke's work too.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Tue, May 15, 2012, at 9:58 PM
A good internet talk show out of Sweden is called Red Ice Creations. You can listen to the 1st hour of the archives of each show but you have to become a member to listen to the second hour. I have been a memeber for a couple of years. Most of the topics and guests he has I like but a few I don't care for as much because I don' have the background they do about the topics.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Tue, May 15, 2012, at 10:43 PM
Doom, Alfred Hitchcock would be impressed with Icke.
I can see some of his absurdity as an excellent bantor of all that an enquiring mind would dare imagine. I also see some reason in his madness.
When it comes down to it in my opinion, this bantor has been presented time and time again throughout history. Same sci-fi presentation, just different casts of characters.
Ah, but it is intriguing, no?
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, May 16, 2012, at 12:19 AM
Menu
Wheels mentioned this topic a few weeks ago. I don't write much anymore, but I just have to vent on this one. Commonsensematters labeled those of us paranoid who say that the government has been passing laws which restrict and eventually will eliminate all of our freedom. Who really are the paranoid ones Common? The people or the government? And no the people are not the government and haven't been for a long time, but that is for another day to discuss.
Commonsense Wrote:
For most of the more sensible participants this should dispel the paranoia...
"Posted by Gabe Rottman, Washington Legislative Office at 11:56am
"Recent days have seen significant concern about an unassuming bill with an unassuming name: the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011." The bill, H.R. 347, has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.
"The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.
"It's important to note -- contrary to some reports -- that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.
These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).
"The original statute, unchanged by H.R. 347,made certain conduct with respect to these restricted areas a crime, including simple trespass, actions in or near the restricted area that would "disrupt the orderly conduct of Government," and blocking the entrance or exit to the restricted area.
"H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.
"Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Apr 21, 2012, at 7:56 AM
Replies (19)