It's time to brainstorm about the solutions and not the problem. Here they are! Please read: This is very important! Your ideas will be welcomed: feel free to comment. Thank you.

::::::::

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!

F) Expose the War on terror for what it is: A fake. Simultaneously, expose the use of government “terrorist” code language deliberately targeting vocal citizens.

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.

So much for the War on Terror. And therefore, so much for S. 1959: It’s a charade. Let’s call it for what it is, and shoot it down as such, in public!

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:

Even while the bill veils the request that the Commission “should not” violate civil liberties and protect the people, the text of the bill includes the imperative that the people “shall not” coerce the government. Without defining what “coerce” means. So to hold our politicians accountable, in public, could be misconstrued as “coercion”. Bye-bye free speech and Government transparency. And welcome to the thought and speech police country in the United States of America.

Michael Ratner, head attorney/director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said on a radio talk show that this bill is “so broad” and used words to the effect that it could be misconstrued to suit indivualized agendas.

E) The Bill targets thought and not action, which is very Red China-like and plainly unconstitutional:

Note that the text above says that “Any measure taken to PREVENT violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism….” (emphasis added). In so stating, the US Government is claiming that they hold a crystal ball, capable of discerning individuals’ violently radicalized, homegrown terrorism INTENTIONS, DESIRES AND THOUGHTS to commit crimes against the USA. INTENTION AND THOUGHT, by itself, is evasive and is not enough to PROVE a crime ring in action. Simple mind reading is not enough, is Red China-like and unconstitutional.

Further, to make “recommendations” to the government based on THOUGHT alone is to confess that future legislation targeting thought and not action is in the works. That should have us all very concerned. This legislation based on these “recommendations” will be the end product of studying the most vocal people in our country: Our college students, “radical” citizens, “terrorists” such as 9-11 truth-tellers have already been dubbed to be, etc. Could the motive to quell free speech be any more clear?

F) While the bill claims not to discriminate against any one social cross-sector, in fact it very plainly does just that:

The bill sets up the Commission using Colleges as its headquarters. Hmmmmm…..and of course, college students are our most vocal citizens and the most internet-savvy. A strategic place to study the way the Internet is used and the expression of free thought.

LET’S GET THE PETITION GOING, EXPOSE THE FACTS FOR WHAT THEY ARE, WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITORS (EVEN IF THAT MEANS THE LOCAL PAPERS, SINCE THE MAINSTREAM NEWS WON’T TOUCH THIS) , GATHER FUNDS FOR A MAJOR LAWSUIT (WHICH WILL SCARE THE HECK OUT OF THEM), EMBARRASS THOSE WHO INTRODUCED THIS BILL BY DEMANDING THEIR RESIGNATION, AND TOPPLE THIS BILL! (And demand a filibuster if it passes, reminding Senators that we pay them to do our collective will).

Thank you all for your help.

Authors Bio:
This quote summarizes the nature of my concerns and the content of personal experiences which stir my activism:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement on human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves". --Paul Revere, House of Commons