This set of bills is one of our modern version of "Enabling Laws" just like those passed in Germany in the rising tide of Nazism.

The problem with enabling laws is that they aren't dangerous IN AND OF THEMSELVES, but are useful to enable either positive or negative DEPENDING ON WHO HAS POWER.

Given the total lack of reason and attention to constitutional protections that the current administration has displayed, I don't see how ANY reasonable person can provide them with any additional enabling legislation.  If they had shown even the slightest tendency to BALANCE civil liberties with security, then perhaps, but they HAVE NOT.

The Democrats are running scared (as usual) and are a pathetic and unprincipled bunch of whining wimps who refuse to stand up for the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but run scared of being labeled the "Mommy Party" at every opportunity.  In reality, I think they are the "moron cousin" party. 

The Rethuglicans, of course, are hoping at one last chance for their "Permanent Majority" without regard for what the American public might actually want.

by Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 747 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:57:58 AM

  (0+)

This bill actually enables a great deal before they even pass it in the Senate.  They can investigate this "phenomena" all day long and tar people with the label of facilitator of violent radicalization.  It enablesl Joe McCarthy.

On the broader point, this is dangerous, as you point out, and there's no reason to trust either party at this point.  This bill was gratutious, Harman didn'thave to do it but she digs it, it's her "contribution."  Shamful.

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:06:21 AM

  (0+)

Hello friends

Here are a couple of things to put a different "spin" on this bill.

A) The text of the bill says that the Commission "should not" (a recommendation) clamp down on civil liberties and that it "should not" target any one social cross-sector. Yet, the bill also unequivocally states that the People "shall not" (an imperative) "coerce" the government. Aside from the fact that "coerce" is not defined, the use of "should not" where protecting the people is concerned, vs. the terms "shall not" when protecting the government's best interest, is evidenced all over this bill. The above is only one example.

 B) I have to wonder what legislation will be passed in the future as a result of the "recommendations" of the Committee.

C) "Studies" of thought systems of hot topics NEVER occur peacefully at a desk, especially when involving human interaction dynamics.

D) AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY DEFINTION OF "RADICAL":

1. Arising from or going to a root or source; fundamental, basic. 2. Carried to the farthest limit; extreme; sweeping; radical or social change. 3. Favoring or effecting revolutionary changes, as in political organization

By the definition of #2 "Carried to the farthest limit", it is believed by the average concerned American that this means physical violence and crazy action.

However, when looking at the definitions #1 and 3, the meaning becomes something very different. "Going to the root" and "Favoring or effecting social changes" put the word "radical" into a very different context.

Ahhhh, so now we know who the government is referring to when using the word "radical". Actually, the truth is that it best describes themselves, where undermining the COnstitution is concerned.

Further, to do "violence" to a "radical" thing such as undermining the Constitution means to undercut their wrong-doing.

After all, "violence" is not defined in this bill as physical violence, specifically.

BE NOT DECEIVED BY THE TEXT OF THIS BILL! PLease pass word along. This is very important to understand!

E) THe Patriot Act grants warrantless arrest powers to the FBI agents themselves, using a loose definition of "terrorism" which, according to the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights and additional legal entities, is drafted in such a way as to include activists, religious and peace groups in its sweep.

Therefore, the terms "terrorist" and "Terrorism" in this bill are to be questioned. It's code language, folks, meant to target vocal people.

Further, the "Studies" and "Recommendations" made by the Commission, when working hand and glove with the Patriot Act, enable such warrantless arrests by unilateral volition of the FBI agents themselves, to occur.

LET'S CALL THE LIES FOR WHAT THEY ARE, IN PUBLIC! CONFRONT THOSE POLITICIANS, IN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR! PLEASE SPREAD WORD!

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 12:36:15 PM

  (0+)

This is some of the language you're referring to, I think:

SEC. 899A (3) "'(3) 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."

This is a conundrum of sorts. Citizens are barred from acts that "intimidate or coerce the U.S. government..." What are protest movements, a million people on the mall in D.C. or millions on the streets during May Day demonstrations by Latinos, other than "intimidation?" The May Day demonstrations were a huge show of political power. This essentially opens the door to shut this down. The confusion comes in when the coercers do their thing with other citizens. Find a grumbler who says that he or she is intimidated and you've met the criterion.

Compare this to SEC 4 of the McCarran Act ("The Internal Security Act") from 1950:

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, as defined in paragraph (15) of section 3 of this title, the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to the proposal of a constitutional amendment.

This vile act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and vetoed (overridden) by Pres. Truman. Ironically, the definition of efforts to foster a "totalitarian dictatorship" is met by those now in power. Those efforts are enabled considerably by H.R. 1955 & S. 1959.

Maybe we need to bring back the McCarran Act to stop those who proposed and implemented The Patriot Act and this legislation.

The legislation already has a potential, even if not passed. All Rep. Harman has to do is have a subcommittee hearing to clear the air on the defamatory charge implied by witness Weitzman regarding 911 Truth and anti immigration groups. That would really cut into their appeal and tar them with the brush of devastating associations.

We lose if they pass it. We lose if they investigate it further.

And this is the Democrats (he said ironically).

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:32:00 AM

  (0+)

seems to be the only rational response to the accusatory formulations from each politicized US Attorney (all of them?), under Draco's Proposed New Laws, and apinned to every American with the ability to think to themselves, "Whaaat??"

The only Thought Control Bill that the world really needs is one which would permanently throttle any new ideas emanating from the Sith Lords who currently infest the Executive Branch; those mental Sadists who have brought us "Iraqis to fight over there" instead of here on the runways of the Mena, Arkansas airfield, in the Halls of Halliburton, or at the corporate headquarters of BlackWater.

Perhaps the only comforting thing left to hope for is this. The thought that, if this pack of Neo-Con jackals can ever be separated from the American body politic which they daily savage and assault, they may someday be pursued as relentlessly across the nations of the Earth as were the Nazis (Oh, yes! Von Braun! Well, they were supposed to have pursued the Nazis), and brought to justice to be tried eternally (it would take that long) for their transgressions.

The most difficult part of all of this would be fairly trying them under American Law.

Why? Because we give the accused the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. And where would we possibly find twelve men or women so depraved as to be considered peers of those whom we wished to try?

I suppose Satan might qualify. But surely he would be the chief defense counsel. So who then would sit on their jury?

Himmler? Yeah, he might make the cut. Caligula? Possibly. King Leopold of Belgium? Yeah, a good prospect. Jeffrey Dahmer? (Nawww. He had issues. This current infestation of Executive pond scum, living parasitically on our Federal Budget, only do things like Dahmer did for the fun of it) So who is left?

I think perhaps the crisis is this. Finding a jury sufficiently debased to qualify as peers for this toxic lot. Given that such prosecutions would run well into the Afterlife of all of us, who do we choose to watch staring out from the jury box at the accused for the next Millenium?

May I have a list of nominees, please?

by Phil Lindsey (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 1:10:19 PM

  (0+)

this just keeps getting worse.  the great 'democracy' castle in la la land. suddenly the knight turns its very opposite and rides new laws into the dumb heart of the citizen, internet provided it made no difference because the laws had all been changed and the points of the swords were where the deliberations were finalized.  When you begin this study of modern history politik, you may as well understand where the bloody stumps lie.

by remo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 97 comments [37 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 1:52:44 PM

  (0+)

"H.R. 1955 does NOT criminalize behavior.  The bill does not create any new crimes, criminal penalties, nor does it encourage the Commission to do so.  On the contrary, H.R. 1955 requires the Department of Homeland Security, through its Privacy Office and Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, to create an auditing mechanism to ensure that any policy stemming from the actions of the Commission will not violate anyone’s rights.  The results of this audit will be included in the Commission’s annual report to Congress."

Actually, Sec 899 C (e) says "Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not result in a disproportionate impact, without a rational basis, on any particular race, ethnicity, or religion and include the results of its audit in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.' 

The Fact Sheet lies when it says "anyone"; the auditing mechanism, which will be part of the Executive Branch, not necessarily overseen by Congress, is instructed to ensure that People are not discriminated against on the basis or race, ethnicity or religion- so if you're a member of a dissident group whose actions may be targeted by laws recommended by the Commission, you're not protected- unless you can show that your actions are religious- if they're something else, i.e. political, they're not protected by this Bill or the so-called auditing mechanism.

Why do they not mention Sec 899C (a)? This says:

"In General- In carrying out this subtitle, the Secretary shall ensure that the efforts of the Department to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism as described in this subtitle do not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, and civil liberties of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents." 

What's this "in general" business, when it comes to the People's Rights, which We established the Constitution to protect? As it's used in other places in the Bill, this implies "generally", i.e. "not necessarily always, but if we feel like fitting it into our agenda".  

"The purpose of H.R. 1955 is to study violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism using a method that has worked in the past: the establishment of a National Commission.  This approach worked prior to September 11, 2001 with the National Commission on Terrorism, which set the stage for America’s counterterrorism strategy prior the September 11 attacks.  It worked again with the National Commission on the Terrorists Attacks upon the United States, which in the wake of the attacks made recommendations that strengthened and solidified our current approach to fighting terrorism both domestically and abroad.  This new Commission will follow their example and serve our country by providing answers to the indigenous threat of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism."  

What a joke. That they'll "follow the example" of these previous Commissions is likely, but to call a Commission "successful" that didn't prevent 9/11? Is this Newspeak or what? And the 9/11 Commission is regarded as a coverup by a growing majority of Americans, not a "success"

Only 16% of Americans think the BS Administration is telling the truth about what it knew prior to 9/11 www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

Thanks to Michael Collins for speaking out in favor of people's right to question what we've been fed about why the 9/11 attacks succeeded, and thanks to the NLG, SALT, CCR and the ACLU for proactively recognizing the threats all dissidents and activists may face as a result of this unconstitutional and treasonous legislation

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1111 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 2:24:48 PM

  (0+)

No matter how hard I try to leave, they keep pulling me back...(or something like that)  Godfather

You know not even Michael Corleone would come up with something this heavy handed.  You make excellent points. 

The defamation of 911 Truth and anti immigration groups by lumping them in with "pro-Iraq-insurgency" groups was one of the all time cheap shots.

Here's another one.  The rules that the House was operating under when they held this vote supposedly specify no major legislation, just routine bills. So Harman rolls out this bill claiming to establish the equivalent of the 911 Commission, introduce it and get it passed.  

Isn't that major legislation.  Ron Paul thought so and he was truly upset.

The deception and disinformaiton surrounding H.R. 1955 is so deep, there's no telling what will come up next.  

We've lost a great deal but we're not on the run anymore.  Obama going from "pro" to "neuteral" is significant.  That's due to input, calls, etc.  When these guys and gals actually read the legislation, a good number will notice the similarities to The Smith Act and The McCarran Act of the McCarthyism era.  Some might even take the logical step and vote against the bill.

I think that they'll try to sneak it in in somehow before they descend upon their districts to celebrate the fine job they've all done this session, ending the war an all.

Thanks for your comments. 

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:37:03 AM

  (0+)

Why is it foreigners that want to control our system? Chertoff has 2 passports, I suggest he decide to live where his loyalty lies,and take Mr. Wietzman with him. The USA is host to a large group of parasites,AIPAC,Bush's,Clinton's we need a big tick dip ASAP. GET THESE THINGS OFF ME !!!! THEY ARE SUCKING US DRY !!  HELP Dr. PAUL !!!

by john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 463 comments [24 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 3:37:39 PM

  (0+)

Now watch what you say or theyll be calling you a radical,
Liberal, fanatical, criminal.
Won't you sign up your name, we'd like to feel you're
Acceptable, respecable, presentable, a vegtable!

or just a plain fruitcake! 

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:56:11 PM

  (0+)

Dontcha just hate it when lyrics make sense like this ?!

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 8:37:08 AM

  (0+)

are our current and past adminisrations, but especially our current one. This is how I described it:

http://greatreddragon.com/commentary/071201_LidOnAmericasCoffin.htm :: ::

I'm just as alarmed as Michael Collins, and everyone else who gives a damn about our homeland should be, too.  Almost everyone in Congress, and the executive and judical branches, have destroyed the respect I once held.   I didn't lose it, they destroyed it.  Big difference.

by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 3:46:15 PM

  (0+)

...inside a bit of raw hamburger, it is clear that the intent of this law is to curb freedom of expression, but make the process palatable. After all, the line between speaking the truth and speaking governmental dissent is thin to non-existent.

Just by me saying something like "George Bush is a brain-dead f*ck who wouldn't know how to live without a house full of domestics to do everything for him," I could be seen as a dangerous radical, even though, I am not even close. I could have my freedom curtailed, and few, if any people would give two sh*ts! Even though my incarceration for expressing an opinion means that others who share that opinion, and are brave enough to speak it would be sitting next to me in prison, no one would care one bit.

Kept happy on a diet of cell phones that aren't cell phones sold by a phone company that isn't a phone company, and other consumerist bullshit, few indeed are the brave souls that would wake up long enough to do something other than put more tunes into their iPod. Only those brave enough to post the words I posted above about the Chimp in Chief would be willing to do anything to come to my aid, and that ain't a lot of people!

I keep hoping against hope that the rank-and-file Americans get off their politically inactive asses and throw a pie in the face of the system (literally and figuratively). However, as each day passes, and the pile of scandals keeps piling like cow sh*t on a dairy's floor, I get the feeling that those who truly care enough about the country to put themselves in a position to be prosecuted under such draconian laws, are few and far between.

Oh, to be sure, there are many who share my opinion. Some say so. Most don't. However, if there was a real threat of incarceration attached to that opinion, fewer indeed would speak of it openly, and even fewer would take the step of immortalizing that thought in a venue such as this.

At this point in my life, I really have nothing left to lose by expressing this opinion. Frankly, I can afford to be idealistic. Apart from my life, there really isn't anything more that can be taken from me. Therefore, I am in a good position to be objective enough to call a spade a spade.

My nonconformity has brought both reward and consequence. Most of the rewards have been intangible, which is fine with me. Most of the consequences have been anything but. Such is life.

On another topic touched on in the article, if we think that we have learned anything from McCarthyism, we are sadly mistaken. If we had, ideas like this piece-of-sh*t piece of legislation would have never seen consideration in any form whatsoever. If we had, the media could have never sold a draft-dodger as an American hero, and a Purple Heart winner as a cowardly war criminal, whatever.

The only difference between the McCarthy era and now is the names given to the "undesirables". Back then it was "pinko", "commie", and so on. Now, the undesirables are called "liberals", "tree huggers", or they are accused of emboldening our enemies, as if occupying their lands and killing their innocent civilian population makes our "enemies" break out the wine, hashish, and fresh baklava.

The intent is the same. The (commie, liberal) wants to destroy America. Therefore, they are a threat. Get rid of them! America, love it or leave it. And so it goes, ad infinitum!

However, isn't it curious that while the "bad guys" are out trying to destroy America, those pointing fingers are the ones actually doing the job? The powerless get accused of what the powerful are doing, and the powerless are STUPID enough to swallow the bullshit; hook, line, and stinker!

The only good thing about this kind of sh*tty legislation is eventually, someone speaks up...and it dies the death it richly deserves. Had this legislation been around in 2002, the likelihood that it would be put in place would be a lot higher. However, I get the feeling that there is a real groundswell against this shit! DUBYA and company have proved they are liars, not to be trusted. Therefore, people are a bit more wary about the goings on than they would have been a few years ago.

That's the hope, anyway!

Blessed be!
Pappy

by Pappy (61 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 860 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 4:56:19 PM

  (0+)

We're redoing McCarthyism after we started redoing Viet Nam.  That's a cause for concern.  But I remember the president Select and his perverted scare tactics about WMD.  Well, people who cruise the information superhighway knew that the WMD case stunk well before the IWR passed, all from public sources.  Now how could that be?  It happened because corporate media was to preoccupied to aggregate the very information that they were producing. 

Now we're at the heart of why the Internet has to go.  There are so many more people using the net, "the center cannot hold" and that center is hip to the clear preferences of citizens.  They had better shut sucker down, they're thinking, or there will be big trouble.

There hasn't been a change of power in this country since the Kennedy assassination.  It's been one long cover-up of continually outrageous events.  Well, there time may be up.  If a 404 to 6 House vote ends up with a sneaky passage of this (very high risk) or a withdrawal, or a procedural burial, the game is truly up.

Happy holidays! 

by Michael Collins (130 articles, 20 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 485 comments [42 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:48:29 AM

  (0+)

Using taxpayer dollars to establish University Based Centers of Excellence which will study radicalism in "homegrown terrorists" ???? That term could be interpreted to mean any of us who disagree with the current administration's policies. Sounds like one more nail in the coffin of democracy.

by memary (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 70 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 9:11:23 PM

  (0+)

Hey everybody, there is one major oversight here: It's not only the text of the bill itself which we have to study. It's the title. And that is huge:

"To establish the National Commission on the PRevention of Violent Radicalization and HOmegrown Terrorism, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (emphasis added). Those "other purposes" are not only undefined in the text of the bill, but aren't even mentioned.

Ahhh. A big loophole. What' s the purpose of that?

By that definition, the entire bill itself, and any argument for it or against it, any "Myths" etc, are all moot points. Because the "for other purposes" in the TITLE of the bill itself, with ZERO mention or definition of what those "other purposes" can lead to....let the imagination wander. Anything goes. THE TEXT OF THE BILL IS CANCELED! ALL ITS SUPPOSED PROVISIONS, SAFEGUARDS (MY FOOT!) ETC...GONE! POUF IN A VEIL OF SMOKE.

Time to write this to the Congresspeople and let them know we are smart and "on their trail".

ALSO: The claim that the bill doesn't target any one cross-sector of society (ie, discrimination) is bogus. Because the bill establishes the Commission to study COLLEGE STUDENTS by setting up a Center of Excellence at hte COLLEGES! It studies "radical" thinkers. Come on, that's not targeting any one cross-sector? THEIR REBUTTAL DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE OR HOLD ANY LOGIC!

"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".

"SHOULD NOT" is a recommendation, not an imperative, in legal language. It's plain as day:  This "should not" will not only prevent such biased targeting, but may even be considered, in legal code language, a request for exactly that to happen. If they meant business, the legal terminology used would be "SHALL NOT" (imperative).

"Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States SHOULD NOT violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States Citizens and lawful permanent residents".

Here we go again. "SHOULD NOT". A recommendation, not an imperative. Any official who tells you that this bill protects constitutional rights is blowing hot air in your face. And being savvy to the law, they know it.

What's more is that the Constitution protects ALL PEOPLE, not merely citizens and lawful permanent residents. Whether or not we agree about immigration is of course open to debate, but the fact remains that US law protects all people. "All persons" have the rights under the fourth amendment to be free from warrantless arrests, seizures, etc and this bill is saying that illegal immigrants may be dumped in jails, taken away for torture, god knows what because they will have no COnstitutional protections. And neither will the legal residents/citizens, given these "Should nots' which really are veiled requests.

Last but not least of all:

"Any measure taken to PREVENT violent radicalization...." means that this bill is targeting thought itself, not action. That's just plain unconstitutional. Sorta like in Red China. It basically means "I think, therefore I am....jailed. I talk, therefore I am...a terrorist". And terrorists are more than just jailed. I will say no more: Some things don't belong in print.

PLEASE SPREAD THIS ALL OVER THE INTERNET, WRITE YOUR EDITORS AND URGE PEOPLE TO PROTEST ON SENATORS' DOORSTEPS. PLEASE URGE PEOPLE TO MAKE CALLS TO THE SENATE AND TO NOT ONLY TELL THE SENATOR TO VOTE "NO" ON THIS DANGEROUSLY WORDED BILL, BUT ALSO TO PROMISE A FILIBUSTER IF IT PASSES. AND TO REMIND THE SENATORS THAT WE PAY THEM TO UPHOLD, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION! REMIND THEM AND HTE PUBLIC, IN LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, OF THAT FACT! PLEASE! THANK YOU.

by Kathryn Smith (110 articles, 2 quicklinks, 43 diaries, 542 comments [23 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:22:49 AM

  (0+)

Shove your bullshit intimidation tactics and your phony patriotism up your ass.

And stop embezzling our tax dollars, only to drag them through the blood of our troops and innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians and stuff them into the pockets of your war profiteer cronies.

Who is REALLY trying to destroy America?

Those of us standing up to demand adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution that has guided us for more than 200 years,

 or

Those who put one hand on the Bible, hold the other up to God and swear to honor that very same Constitution, only to desecrate it at every turn, refer to it as "just a goddamned piece of paper" and declare themselves to be above the law?

You neocons are so transparent.

johnperryonline.com

youtube.com/jperryam

by John Perry (31 articles, 32 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 7:50:56 AM

  (0+)

LOOK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SERVED THEIR PERPOSE. WE HAVE MADE THE GLOBALIST SUPPER RICH WITH OUR HARD WORK, AND OUR BRAVE SOLDIERS, THEY HAVE NO MORE USE FOR US ANY MORE, SO NOW THE PLAN IS TO MAKE THIS INTO A THRID WORLD COUNTRY,AND IF YOU TAKE TIME AND YOU SEE , HOW THIS BEING DONE, OPEN BORDERS TO DESTROY THE WORKING CLASS, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA , TO DESTROY THE MIDDLE CLASS, THE TWO WARS TO BANKRUPT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND WITH THAT SAID, NOW ITS CONTROL OF THE PUBLIC, AND WITHOUT GETTING INTO A HOLD LIST OF NEW LAWS PASSED, IF YOU HAVE BEEN DOING YOUR HOME WORK, THIS ALL ADDS UP TO WHATS COMING NEXT A DICTATORSHIP,  OR IS THIS A DICTATORSHIP NOW BUT THE MASS MEDIA DECEPTION AN MISINFORMATION AND A LONG TIME OF BRAINWASHING THAT WE ARE NOT SURE. I THINK THIS IS THE BIGGIST MIND CONTROL AN DECEPTION IN THE HISTORY OF ALL HUMANITY AND THE WORLD.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 7:52:52 AM

  (0+)