Obama Supports HR1955 - Pro Fascism Bill

[theFrankFactor]

I really don't know what anybody sees in this guy. Yeah, he'll "ensure that it neither violates civil liberties nor promotes racial profiling". Idiot fuck! That's the essence of the bill!

Dear XXXXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts regarding the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.

This legislation would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to create a national commission to examine and prepare a report on the causes of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States. The legislation would also establish a Center of Excellence to study the roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism, and methods that can be used by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate and prevent homegrown terrorism.

The American people understand that new threats require flexible responses to keep them safe. They also insist that our responses to threats respect the Constitution and do not violate the basic tenets of our democracy. The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act includes provisions prohibiting the Department of Homeland Security's efforts from violating civil rights and civil liberties of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Please know of my unwavering commitment to the protection of civil liberties and my longstanding opposition to racial profiling. I will monitor the progress of this legislation to ensure that it neither violates civil liberties nor promotes racial profiling.

As you know, this legislation passed the House by a 404-6 vote on October 23, 2007. I will keep your comments in mind if this legislation is considered by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and you can be sure that I will not support any bill that I believe violates civil rights or civil liberties

Thank you again for contacting me. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama
United States Senator

[MADem]

1. Pro Fascism bill? Ain't that a bit.... hyperbolic? nt

[Drunken Irishman]

2. No, clearly it's named the Hitler-Mussolini bill.

[tammywammy]

23. lol

:rofl:

[autorank]

11. It's pretty bad. Take a look PLUS contact info and Model Letter for Your Two Senators

These two articles sum up the dangers. They're real.

Michael Collins: Thought Control on the Internet

Michael Collins: Thought Control Bill Under Fire

Jessica Lee, who along with DU's reprehensor, wrote very early on the subject, was contacted by
Obama's office just before Dec. 14 and told that he was neutral on the bill. Apparently, from the
OP, he's shifted back (which doesn't surprise me). Depends on the date. So I don't know his current position.

Obama is on the committee, Homeland Security, chaired by LIEberman, which is theSenate committee
hearing the bill.

The 2nd article listed, "Under Fire," has contact information for the Senate. Email and call your
two Senators.

Here's a model letter from a packet going out when Congress returns:

Dear Senator ____________:

The Senate is considering S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This is before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
I'm writing to urge you to voice your opposition to this bill. Instead of catching "bad guys," it sets forth a vague but broad standard for "intent" and "facilitating" radicalization that will chill the free speech of groups from a broad political spectrum - anti immigration to anti war. The proof of this is testimony before the House subcommittee in which anti immigration and 911 activist groups were named along with "pro Iraq insurgency" organizations. This is the direction this bill takes us.

The "bad guys" will continue to use the internet regardless of the laws in place and good; law abiding people trying to help their country will be intimidated and denied their First Amendment rights.

Please stop this legislation. There are plenty of laws on the book to go after terrorists but too few to protect citizen rights.

Sincerely,

[K Gardner]

3. And you see that he supports it where in this letter??? I got the same "form letter" from my

Senator when I wrote him about it. It gives the canned explanation of the bill and a noncommital response. Pretty standard. The bill isn't even before the Senate now.

[Occam Bandage]

37. Other than the fact that the bill is not "pro-fascism," and that Obama is not stating any support,

the OP is totally accurate. I mean, there is a bill involved.

[K Gardner]

48. Thank you for the fact check, OB.. amidst all the other, uh, stuff..

I neglected to realize there was a BILL involved !!

:sarcasm: :pals:

[PSPS]

4. I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion

He points out that it passed the house (of which he is not a member) almost unanimously, and then says he will keep your comments in mind, "if this legislation is considered by the Senate Committee."

This seems reasonable to me, since it isn't even sure that the bill will even get through the Senate committee.

Later, he says he "will not support any bill that I believe violates civil rights or civil liberties." I take this to mean that he will oppose the bill, assuming it makes it out of committee and after any amendments, if such safeguards aren't codified in the law.

I'm not an "Obama guy," but I didn't see anything wrong with his reasonable and measured response.

[theFrankFactor]

62. You're right but then...Why not just say "I do not support this bill".

Three... count 'em THREE Democrats voted against the thing. All I'm sayin' is, step up. I can see that no one cares about this here, and that's okay I guess. Better we should wait and see what becomes of it.

[Nailzberg]

5. Pro-fascism? That's precious.

It establishes a commission to examine the US and countries such as Canada, UK, Australia, to see what can be learned about home-grown terrorism. Have you read the full text?

It doesn't do anything more than that.

[babylonsister]

6. You got me. Obama is a fascist. Care to back that up? nt

[sniffa]

8. he's also a racist

i read it hear on DU... several times.

[babylonsister]

15. But... how can that be?

**he's black** No way!

[Occam Bandage]

19. It's well-known that he hates Finns.

[sniffa]

28. but the Finns are filthy animals

i thought everyone knew that. :shrug:

[tammywammy]

33. Sniffa, I have to say

You just made my night. "Finns are filthy animals." :)

And a happy holidays to you. :)

[sniffa]

41. and same to you

i hope it's wonderful for you and yours. :hi:

[sniffa]

27. well then, why would he endorse Oprah?

it's the "charge of the black brigade."

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. You really ought to change this headline

It's offensive and does nothing to advance your argument. Such as it is...

[theFrankFactor]

10. So Flag it

Knock yourself out.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. consider it done

[theFrankFactor]

34. Good Point. Thanks.

[theFrankFactor]

9. Yeah, You're Right. My Bad.

I don't know, see, I have this repulsion to this terrorism hysteria. I don't really see the need for even MORE legislation to compromise our freedom. And, yes, that is a hyperbolic post. But not by much from where I stand.

I expected to get a lot of defensive responses. It's great. It helps me understand the positions of those who find this nobody so compelling. For me his "form letter" speaks volumes.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Which freedoms does this legislation compromise?

[theFrankFactor]

25. None. It's a Step in the Right Direction (eom)

[Occam Bandage]

29. Okay, so it threatens zero freedoms. You've climbed down from that ledge.

Now, how exactly is this bill "stepping towards" the violation of liberties? And keep the wild speculation to a minimum. Sounds to me like it's proposing a commission be created to study the extent to which the Internet is used by violent groups (from al-Qaida to the KKK). How exactly will that be a step towards fascism?

[theFrankFactor]

31. See Post #30

[theFrankFactor]

58. I can see this isn't going well...

That was sarcasm.

[mac2]

12. I agree with you.

Seems the rest of the people are not believing what is right before them. They don't like facts. He's voted with Bush many times since we sent him to DC. He won't be any different than the leadership in Congress right now. He's just a different race.

Martin Luther King would be angry at him for not using his power to help his race and all Americans keep their democracy.

[babylonsister]

20. You are a dumb little shit with a star, I see.

But thanks for the MLK reference. :eyes:

[theFrankFactor]

26. Wow Great Points!

You really put that argument to bed. Well done.

[cali]

51. As long as we're speaking for Dr King...

I think he'd be incredibly proud of Obama and would likely be supporting him because he's a brilliant man and a liberal who is helping all Americans.

[theFrankFactor]

60. How Tenderly and Carefully Worded.

[cali]

61. how dim and vacuous. n/t

[theFrankFactor]

13. Yeh I Guess We're Gonna Have a Real Problem With Homegrown Terrorists!

Better nip that in the bud before they do anymore harm. C'mon man, wake the fuck up already. The media has picked your candidates for you and there are a reasons for that. If you see this bill as in any way necessary I question YOUR judgement.

[silverojo]

14. Don't defend Obama too quickly on this one

It's also one step closer to monitoring what we do on the internet. Goodbye, DU, if that happens.

[theFrankFactor]

21. Here's a List of the Idiots that Voted for This Thing

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-993

[theFrankFactor]

16. Some People Make Pets Out of Their Candidates

These candidates need to be ridden HARD. Those with the most dramatic and visionary ideas and experience are already marginalized out of the game. The tendency for people to idolize their remaining choices places us as citizens at a disadvantage. We have already lost so much power its disgraceful. Any and all motions to ask for more from us in the way of our liberties should be vehemently rejected not accepted because it's your guy or gal that takes these mushy-ass, noncommittal stances. Form letter, geezuz! What a bullshit, namby pamby, chicken shit response in my UNhumble opinion.

If this comment stretches the thin skin of this place too badly then it's just further proof of the pussification of our party.

[Occam Bandage]

18. A conversation of one, I see.

What liberties are you giving up here? And what exactly is your problem with a "form letter?" You've got the show-host bile down, but your arguments are no more substantial than those of the standard-issue forum kiddie.

[theFrankFactor]

22. Well, Let's Talk About it...

Has the Patriot Act affected you directly?

[Occam Bandage]

24. We're not talking about the Patriot Act, sir, and we are not discussing

the individual effects of bills on either speaker. A bill to enslave all persons of Italian descent would not affect me directly in the slightest, but would clearly be unacceptable.

I am asking you what liberties this bill threatens, and how exactly those liberties are threatened. Since you believe the bill rises to the level of "fascism," I would expect this would be an easy question.

[theFrankFactor]

30. Well Sir or Maddam...

The Headline was hyperbole as I sated previously. From where I stand a bill to study HOMEGROWN terrorism is wholly uncalled for. And further, AS I SEE IT, the Patriot Act informs opinion on this bill because it too was accepted quickly and without necessary scrutiny just like this was in the house. The bill was voted on in near secrecy. It can have far reaching implications on restricting DISSENT and the expression thereof. That the bill does not specifically state "the government can fuck you up if you protest" does not have the same calming effect on me as it does on you. Can we start there?

[Occam Bandage]

35. So its relation to the Patriot act is that it was accepted overwhelmingly?

No shit it was accepted overwhelmingly. It's proposing the creation of a commission. Congress loves it the ever-lovin' fuck outta commissions and study centers, because that means either resume-padding or patronage--plus, they can look like they're dealing with a problem, without actually having to do anything.

Now, I don't see how dissent is being restricted here. I don't see how dissent is even remotely involved. Hell, I don't even see how outright, no-kidding motherfucking honest-to-God al-Qaida terrorists are affected by this bill.

When Congress starts providing any Federal agency with any power or funding, then you can start saying, "hey, we might have a chilling effect." But as it stands? Really, do you think anyone will think the following?

"Hey, Mark, want to post some dissent on the Internet?"
"Gee, Ted. I heard that the Senate voted to create a commission to study the extent to which radical groups might use the Internet for recruiting and organization, and, should they find there to be a potential problem, perhaps even offer nonbinding suggestions!"
"HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS FASCISM I'M NEVER GOING ONLINE AGAIN."

[theFrankFactor]

40. Okay... It's All Good.

You see, that both bills moved through the congress with little fanfare is only one part of the problem. I thought maybe you'd see a connection between the insidiousness of the Patriot Act and the similarity to this bill. But you don't... and that's... okay. I do. I resent it and I feel it's taking additional steps toward relinquishing the power of the citizens of the United States and further invasion of our privacy. If, after having studied the Bill, you feel otherwise than we'll just agree to disagree.

[Occam Bandage]

42. And I'm sure you see a lot of things.

Such is your job. Notably absent from the list of things you see is any evidence for the belief that this bill will in any way lead to "relinquishing the power of the citizens," or how it will "invade our privacy," but hey.

I agree we may be at an impasse. And if so, good luck, and Merry Christmas.

[theFrankFactor]

45. Merry Christmas and...

We do and that's... okay. My ass still hurts from the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Torture, Rigged Elections, Endless Streams of Lies... well, you get the point. What would have been a more restorative and invigorating situation would have been one in which more than THREE Democrats voted against this thing. But, again, that's just me.

I'm not looking for a Democrat version of Bush/Cheney.

By the way, I love Biden. I wish he had a chance in hell of winning. He's a brilliant man with passion and great foreign policy chops.

[cali]

52. "pussification?"

Great sexist language there, you sanctimonious, self-righteous little toad.

[theFrankFactor]

55. Do You Have Something Against Toads?

AntiToadite!

[Liberty Belle]

36. This bill would create another McCarthy-like commission;

Remember the House UnAmerican Activities committee? Anyone even remotely suspected of being a communist was blackballed, their lives and reputations ruined. From what I've read, this bill could have the same result. Any of us could be hauled before such a commission, and other would be so fearful that they would be coerced into silence -- the real goal of this civil liberties-hating administration. Essentially this is a thought control bill.

This letter does not specifically say that Obama would support this bill if it reaches him for a vote. But I would definitely not support anyone for President who would support this dangerous, reactionary bill that erodes what precious little is left of our freedom of speech here in America.

[Occam Bandage]

38. "A committee abused its power in the midst of mass paranoia."

"Therefore, a study commission will turn into a witch trial."

Convincing.

[Nailzberg]

39. Read the bill before you make that judgement.

It is so innocuous it's pathetic. Definetly not a McCarthy-like commission. This bill creates a study group that had basically no power other than the ability to get free postage and write a report.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

[theFrankFactor]

43. Well, Do We Really Need a Commission on This Then?

Why would all of these defenders of freedom need to vote yes for such a piece of shit?

[Occam Bandage]

44. You don't see any value in studying a potential problem before acting on it?

[theFrankFactor]

47. OB I'm Just Sayin'

I'm not so quick to give 'em an inch. Of ALL of the shit to form a committee on THIS is not an issue. I'm very touchy about relinquishing or forming a committee that MAY cause me to involuntarily relinquish OUR freedom to dissent and dissent like a mother fucker. That's all.

[Occam Bandage]

50. This commission couldn't make you relinquish a gumball.

Is it an important issue? No, not really. That's why there's no real funding involved, nor has any power been granted by this bill. Congress creates hundreds of commissions. If they think it's a real problem, they'll start creating subcommittees or start adjusting the mandates of federal agencies.

"Never give 'em an inch," you say. The problem is when nobody is attempting to take that inch. You see, my old car's theft alarm had the same mentality--scream bloody murder at first hint anything might possibly be happening. It went off about once every two weeks. As a result, if my car were actually stolen, nobody would have cared. I just considered the shrieking to be a nuisance.

[Nailzberg]

46. Whether or not we need a study doesn't take the stink off your bullshit OP

It does nothing to threaten our liberties, let alone promote fascism. To top it off, you singled out Obama, called him an "idiot fuck" for stating his current neutrality on a bill that has yet to be read by the committee, which makes me think you may not care about this bill at all but have other motives.

[theFrankFactor]

49. Yeah, I Want to Sway the Election...

Look, you're right. It was hyperbolic and over the top. Big whoop! Hate me. I expected more of a stand from this heavy hitter that's all. And if I want to call him a fucking idiot- I will. Who cares what I think anyway. You?

Look at us all! Enjoying our freedom to be assholes if we want to.

This Obama thing just rubs me the wrong way. Like he's all that. To me he's a near zero. Hillary's a waste too. But I'll tell ya this; I'd vote any fuckin' Dem over these Repub dolts in a heart beat.

NOTE: I do respect Ron Paul though I STRONGLY disagree with his view on social programs.

[theFrankFactor]

53. Holy Crap, I Got a Reccomend?

Alright, alright, before they pull the thread; I may be suffering from anti-Obama-itis. I think his response was weak. This Hillary/Obama crap is wearing me out. To me he's a passionless empty suit and Hillary is a political hack. They have been elevated by the media and at the expense of the American citizens. Hate me, whatever. Just don't make idols out of these people. Humor of certain forms doesn't transfer well in this format. Put me on your ignore thingy, ban me, whatever.

Happy Holidays.

[K Gardner]

54. Yeah, go figure. People will "rec" on any slurring sliming bullshit around here.

Congratulations.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Wait 'till you post during heavy traffic hours.

One can easily get a dozen simply by attacking anyone or anything from the left, no matter how preposterous the attack is. If the target is a major candidate for office, you can rack recs up like points in skeeball, simply by pouring slime. Personal attacks, lefty attacks, righty attacks, it don't matter. I'd guess that at any moment, at least 1/10 of the people on hate any given candidate, and want to see blood.

I agree with your fundamental point, to an extent; Obama is cool and calculated, while Hillary is a politically-driven person. If you were slightly less belligerent and hyperbolic, you'd get a more positive response.

[theFrankFactor]

57. I had a Bad Week. Oh Well, I'm Among the Forgiving Types Right?

Hyperbole?

[theFrankFactor]

59. In Summary (not that anybody cares)

I just have to say, I certainly did approach this in a way that I thought might encourage some activity and I suppose the hyperbole of my kick off was caustic. Sorry 'bout that. If you've seen my stuff you'd know I'm not 100% serious.

But, and not that anybody cares, I am disappointed that the overall sentiment about this bill and it's intentions are excused by so many.

Terrorism and the specter of imminent threat have been used to great affect over history. That so many would not recoil at this but rather defend its innocuousness and lack of need in light of the very situation we live with in this country today and our recent history, is not encouraging.

I will not tolerate from any Democrats what I would not tolerate from Republicans. I see the situation we find ourselves in dire and disheartening. Democrats allowed this situation to progress to this level. What I see and was looking for was the indication that people, once wedded to a candidate, are willing to overlook more than they probably should. It's not so bad if you are aware of it and accept compromise. But if you accept what goes against principal in sacrifice to the cult of personality you loose much more.

Obama's charm is lost on me. I took a swing at him because I wanted to test the depth of his admirers. Probably a bad way to go about it but hey... We live to fight another day. I can't say the same for someone dear to me.

To those that flipped me off; you go! It's a hard place out there. And it ain't gettin' any better.

[theFrankFactor]

63. !!!!!!!!! Is The Irony of This Bill and This Thread Lost On You? !!!!!!!!!!

This is not about Obama per say. Do you see what has happened in this thread? Let this thing cook for a while and look at the emotion it stirs. The Internet and THIS FORUM are crucial to the preservation of our freedom. I don't give a shit if some people hate me because they don't get it or didn't take the time to think about it. My popularity is not more important to me than real freedom. We have given up too much already.

I know, you think I'm like Chicken Little but I don't care.

This bill is a step towards more control, domination and marginalization of free speech.

VIOLENT RADICALIZATION - The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.(House Resolution 1955)

Do you see that word; facilitating?

Think about it.

You better HOPE your candidate will "ensure that it neither violates civil liberties nor promotes racial profiling". And more than that even. I STILL say it would have shown more strength of character on this particular issue to have said simply, I do not support this bill.

There's more:

`SEC. 899D. CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR THE STUDY OF VIOLENT RADICALIZATION AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM IN THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Establishment- The Secretary of Homeland Security shall establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States (hereinafter referred to as `Center') following the merit-review processes and procedures and other limitations that have been previously established for selecting and supporting University Programs Centers of Excellence. The Center shall assist Federal, State, local and tribal homeland security officials through training, education, and research in preventing violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may choose to either create a new Center designed exclusively for the purpose stated herein or identify and expand an existing Department of Homeland Security Center of Excellence so that a working group is exclusively designated within the existing Center of Excellence to achieve the purpose set forth in subsection (b).

`(b) Purpose- It shall be the purpose of the Center to study the social, criminal, political, psychological, and economic roots of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism in the United States and methods that can be utilized by Federal, State, local, and tribal homeland security officials to mitigate violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

`(c) Activities- In carrying out this section, the Center shall--

`(1) contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(2) utilize theories, methods and data from the social and behavioral sciences to better understand the origins, dynamics, and social and psychological aspects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism;

`(3) conduct research on the motivational factors that lead to violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism; and

`(4) coordinate with other academic institutions studying the effects of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism where appropriate.

I don't know about you, but that's some ugly shit right there. The whole idea is unnecessary. Generally speaking our response to 9-11 has been to destroy what the terrorists couldn't; The foundation of our freedoms and rule of law.

Here's the whole thing:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955

Happy Holidays.
-=Frank

[rAVES]

64. No excuse for anyone who calls themselves "progressive" to support this sloppy rubbish

[theFrankFactor]

65. See? Someone agrees with me... :-)

:patriot: