The Patriot Act’s definition of “Terrorism” is, according to the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights, drafted in a way to include religious groups, peace groups and activists in its sweep. Entities across the partisan spectrum chime in unanimously that the term “Terrorist” is “over-broad” in the Patriot Act. Therefore, the use of the word “Terrorist” in S. 1959 is very likely an echo of that falsified term, especially considering who is being targeted by this bill S. 1959 (see below for legal analysis/proof) and that this bill targets thought, not action, according to ACLU legislative director Caroline Frederickson. Since the Patriot Act grants the FBI unilateral powers to arrest people without probable cause, connection to criminal or terrorist activity, or court warrant, then vocal “terrorists” targeted under S. 1959 would be vulnerable to arrests, thanks to the hand-and-glove action of S. 1959 and the Patriot Act.

To avoid being labeled conspiracy kooks, exposing the War on Terror as a fake and the use of code language targeting vocal people on a legislative level, the matter would have to be asserted in an extremely fact-based way. The ACLU’s website is crawling out the ears with examples of activists dubbed as terrorists, as proof of the claim above. The Red Cross estimates that 70% of “Terrorists” at Guantanamo are innocent, the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights echo each other with relentless consistency  that many Guantanamo detainees are “held without so much as being charged with any crime”, and former FBI agent Mike German sent an e-mail to ACLU members that only one terrorist has been caught since 9-11-01 as the result of National Security Letters (FBI issued subpoenas for private records). An unbelievable 143,000 NSL’s were issued between 2003-2005 alone----that’s 993 per week----53% of which were for Americans, born and naturalized alike, according to Mike German.

FULL TEXT OF THE BILL: http://tinyurl.com/3a3y2z

* Excerpts from the text of the bill, S. 1959, “To establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes”

A) The “Other purposes” in the title are not even mentioned in the text of the bill, let alone defined. This leaves a giant loophole, all but canceling out the text of the bill itself. What are these “other purposes” ? Let the imagination wander: Anything goes.

B) This bill targets free speech on the Internet:

“The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, 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.”

Considering that 9-11 truth Sayers were labeled “terrorists” in Congressional meetings, the motive to clamp down on vocal citizens has hereby been confessed. Further evidence of that motive is in the text below:

C) The aim is to clamp down on vocal citizens, not terrorists:

” Individuals prone to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence span all races, ethnicities, and religious beliefs, and individuals SHOULD NOT be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity or religion”. (Emphasis added).

“Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States SHOULD NOT violate the Constitutional rights, civil liberties, or civil rights of United States Citizens and lawful permanent residents”. (Emphasis added).

“Should not” is a recommendation, not an imperative. “Shall not” would be the imperative legal terminology we would be looking for, if they really meant business and were not, in fact, legislating a veiled request (for such crack-downs on civil liberties to occur).

An aside: The 4th amendment says that "all persons" (not "All citizens and all lawful permanent residents") must be safe from warrantless seizure, arrest, etc and that probable cause submitted under oath is the precursor for any lawful arrest or seizure to occur. Thus, illegal aliens, whether or not we agree about their right to be here in the USA, also will be criminally vulnerable to being DUBBED "terrorists" and arrested, tortured et al, given the text above. The tragic fact is that Guantanamo detainees (innocent ones among the actual terrorists) are Middle Eastern and many Hispanic people have been wrongfully jailed out of state where nobody knows them (though not abducted out of the country, thank god!)

D) The bill protects the government’s best interests but not that of the people, using terminology which is deliberately left vague and open to personalized interpretation:

 1  |  2  |  3