OpEdNews » A STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN TO STOP S. 1959 FROM PASSING INTO LAW: THIS *WILL* WORK!!

Tags for This Article:

Populum Tag Cloud Control Panel
	Fine tune your search to access content

Articles	Links
Diaries	Products
Events	All

All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs

From:
Month Day Year

To:
Month Day Year

Alphabet Popularity	Count ON Count OFF
This Level	Sub-levels

Tag(s): 9-11; ACLU; Action Alerts; Arrest; Citizens; College; Crime; Government; Ideas; Internet; (more...) Internet; Internet; Language; Legislation; People; People; Politicians; Propaganda; Radio; Radio; Rights; Terrorism; Thinking; Truth; Violence (less...)
Add to My Group

December 20, 2007 at 22:14:59

A STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN TO STOP S. 1959 FROM PASSING INTO LAW: THIS *WILL* WORK!!

by Kathryn Smith Page 1 of 3 page(s)

www.opednews.com

SAVE FAVORITES

VIEW FAVORITES

View Ratings | Rate It

ACTION PLAN REGARDING S. 1959: HOW TO STOP IT IN ITS TRACKS (AND THIS WILL WORK!!)

A) Challenge the validity of the 404-6 “votes” in the House of Representatives for HR 1955 (if appropriate):

Because a number of politicians have registered a lack of familiarity with the bill. 23 House members were absent while the bill was voted for. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Barbara Lee, and Rep. Payne were all at a house party where a friend of mine attended, who responded to the concern about S. 1959/HR 1955 by saying things like “oh, do you mean Bill #205” and stuff like that. They seemed “very sketchy” about the bill, said my friend who attended the house party. I also have read about other politicians knowing nothing about this bill. This needs to be researched and, if appropriate, challenged formally: Did the bill REALLY pass the House with 404-6 votes? Maybe yes. Maybe not?

B) Expose in writing and sue the corporation which is funding the passage of S.1959/HR 1955:

I read about a subsidiary of Haliburton sponsoring this bill but regret that I lost the link and the article. Does anybody know about this? Please post below if so. I will research this and see what I can do to get the exact information posted: Stay tuned for an edit to this article. If so it will be posted right here, in this exact paragraph. TO HIT CORPORATIONS IN THE POCKETBOOK IS KEY TO WINNING OUR CAUSE.

C) Gather 100,000 donations on the Internet of $20 each to amount to $2,000,000, and file a lawsuit against the US Government for passing free speech-chilling legislation.

I suggest the Center for Constitutional Rights should be handed the lawsuit, because their head attorney Michael Rattner has been very vocal about S. 1959/HR 1955 and been advocating civilian pro-activity. And while the ACLU has made statements about the bill and registered utmost concern, they also have not circulated an email petition to gather signatures to topple it. I suggest CCR’s Michael Ratner is more “on the ball” on this one than the ACLU. But either entity would be excellent to do the suit.

D) Create a petition

(Opednews, will you please, please do this, immediately!) and gather signatures all over the web to stop S .1959. In that petition, there Must be a request to Senators to promise a filibuster if the bill passes: Very important!

The petition should have additional bullet points:

1) Quoting text of the bill to prove that this bill DOES clamp down on civil liberties*

2) Reminding Congress that we PAY them to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, as is their sworn oath of office to do.

3) Demand that Sen. Susan Collins and Rep. Jane Harmon, who drafted and introduced this bill targeting thought and not action as the ACLU says, step down from public office.

(Even if Sen. Collins and Rep. Harmon don’t resign, the message will be clear: The Senate will be less likely to pass the bill and legislators will realize that they can’t just literally get away with murder, given a People which refuses to lie down as passively as we have in the past. We’ve got to prove the stuff we are made of, NOW, before free speech is lost and it is simply too late!)

E) Create a Civilian Commission

Whose function would be to spy on the government infiltrators to be sent to the College campuses under this bill, to report back to the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights, who in turn would sue the government based on these civilian reports. In other words, if the government is going to shadow us, we will shadow them right back! We aren’t going to lie down and just take it all: We WILL fight back!

1 | 2 | 3

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Tell your editor to expose the facts of S. 1959:

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

	Contact Author
	Contact Editor
	View Other Articles by Author

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

(More...)

2 comments

Virginia Simson is a spiritual journalista/activist who runs a visionary planetary tutorial blogspot, www.ladybroadoak.blogspot.com as well as a blog on the uranium industry and depleted uranium at www.lowlevelradiation.blogspot.com. She feels that we must educate the young as to the real issues of the day - economics, clean energy, a drug free lifestyle, friendship and concern for the environment. We must plan for seven generations in the future. She unconditionally supports impeachment and...

to see more of bio, click on member name
ladybroadoakVirginia Simson is a spiritual journalista/activist who runs a visionary planetary tutorial blogspot, www.ladybroadoak.blogspot.com as well as a blog on the uranium industry and depleted uranium at www.lowlevelradiation.blogspot.com. She feels that we must educate the young as to the real issues of the day - economics, clean energy, a drug free lifestyle, friendship and concern for the environment. We must plan for seven generations in the future. She unconditionally supports impeachment and...

to see more of bio, click on member name

The ACLU has been very disappointing ..

in that they STILL don't call for impeachment (it's just an investigation, for cry eye! Not a convinction .. so what's the deal with them? That is a return to the rule of law //

Yes the obvious choice is pursue the CCR and the sooner the better.

by ladybroadoak (38 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 390 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 6:30:52 AM

Hello friends
I have decided to take a break from political writing for a while and have disconnected my email address correlated with Opednews. If any of you send me a message to my Opednews box and I do not respond, I am not ignoring you: The message simply is not getting through to me because of my disconnected email at home. Thank you and best wishes, Kathryn Smith

This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activis...

to see more of bio, click on member name
Kathryn SmithHello friends
I have decided to take a break from political writing for a while and have disconnected my email address correlated with Opednews. If any of you send me a message to my Opednews box and I do not respond, I am not ignoring you: The message simply is not getting through to me because of my disconnected email at home. Thank you and best wishes, Kathryn Smith

This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activis...

to see more of bio, click on member name

There's a reason why the ACLU doesn't back impeachment:

Hello Ladybroadoak and readers:

Having served on my local ACLU County Chapter Board, let me weigh in by way of explaining why the ACLU doesn't back impeachment (even though, in this case, I don't agree with it myself, by the way).

The ACLU is very careful about maintaining a politically neutral image. And they must, of necessity: They litigate more than 60 cases per state each year, appearing at the US Supreme Court second in frequency to the US Dept of Justice.

Given that fact, you can probably understand why neutrality is key to their effectiveness.

I remember a conversation with a retired FBI agent I ran into who referred to the ACLU as "That darned organization" and immediately piped in that "all you need is loyalty to your country and your God, and then you won't need the ACLU and other organizations like it". Yeah, right. Get real Lady.

Anyway, the ACLU is marginalized of necessity, and of necessity must be cautious in their public image and in that image with COngress. (No, it is not my experience that they compromise with Congress when litigating or advocating civil liberties causes. Not at all! In fact, they convinced the Dept of HOmeland Security not to put radio frequency wave chips in our driver's licenses, have fiercely stuck to their guns and even publicly exposed the Administration for over-invoking "state secrets" and further, the ACLU has exposed them for using those claims particularly when civil liberties matters and wrongful torture were at issue. No, the ACLU does not compromise with COngress: I can say that for sure).

But at the same time, they must maintain their good relations with Congress. Otherwise they can't keep litigating and working for our cause.

Make sense?

FYI I too have written Anthony Romero, national director, urging him to please reconsider in the case of Cheney/Bush where backing impeachment is concerned. I too am concerned and disappointed to say the least. I have pointed out to Anthony Romero that to litigate cause after cause, while curve balls are thrown in our way unremittingly (a strategy of course), is to win battles while losing the war (for our freedom). And that to cut the branches is to assure that they will grow back, but to dig up the tree by the roots is the thing to do.

At least I"ve tried. Like any other good organization, especially one as powerful as the ACLU, it is bound to be infiltrated. And so it is. The ACLU attorneys themselves are marvellous and I am so impressed with them. But there are things going on internally with hte ACLU to slow it down. Tragic and even evil, under the circumstances. That's all I can say about it.

by Kathryn Smith (93 articles, 2 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 361 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 12:08:29 PM