Say Goodbye To Ron Paul Forums....

[libertygrl]

.... as well as any other forum of free speech. Sorry I had to take such dramatic measures, but I needed to get people's attention. I copied the following posts from DailyPaul:


The Bill S1959 is before the Senate - This bill if passed will end the Internet as we know it - remove our basic right of freedom of speech - right to assemble - This bill will totally undermine our Constitution * Our Bill of Rights * & give terrible powers to the Homeland Security Forces. Contact your Senator. Talk to their aids & then leave an email. How in the hell could the house pass this almost unanimously?

The clock is ticking.

It is currently "in committee", but you must be careful because bills in committee often get "slipped" in with other legislation under a different title.
Funny how this NEVER gets brought up in debates where THREE SENATORS participating have this before them, isn't it?

This needs to go viral NOW!!

Please contact your Senators at: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm


Asking questions & demanding answers from one's Government on the Subjects of the War for Oil - or Health Care etc. at a rally could easily get one 'Listed' - Asking questions of a sensitive nature online. Do some research & be enlightened. I have nothing against a strong Terrorism Bill, just not one that also takes away our precious & dwindling Civil Liberties. Home Land Security is ready to become much much more involved in our everyday lives. They just need a few more pieces of legislation to pass.

[freedom-maniac]

Eeek!

[Give me liberty]

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/feb/14/alarming-bill/?opinion

more news on it

Brace your selfs

[AJ Antimony]

Don't worry, people still won't do jack shit about it.

[Highstreet]

I don't think it will come up until after the Dems have been elected. Or the Republican convention is over. Then there won't be a choice to have a mass exodus to Paul from these Phony Dems.

Obama is on the committee and has said he will pass it, but will make sure there are "no infringements of our rights".

[Rhys]

bump

[AlbemarleNC0003]

Shelia Jackson is a piece of work. At the bottom:


Many years of civil rights jurisprudence and law have been ignored and thrown out the window when the racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans is permitted to occur with impunity. These practices show a reckless and utter disregard for the fundamental values on which our country is founded: namely, due process, the presumption of innocence, nondiscrimination, individualized rather than group suspicion, and equitable application of the law. We cannot allow xenophobia, prejudice, and bigotry to prevail, and eviscerate the Constitution we are bound to protect.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20071023-31&bill=h110-1955

[alaric]

blimp!

[IRO-bot]

:EEK: Evan Paul Braun supports it. Sad Day.

[mudburn]

Who knows what will be added to the bill, but as it stands, it looks to me like just another way to expand the size of the federal gov't by creating another bureaucracy called a commission. This legislation is only to create a commission to study violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence as they define these in the bill. The commission, after studying it (which undoubtedly will involve much expense in salaries for the 12 members, travel expenses, consultant fees for their buddies, etc.) is to publish a report on violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and make legislative and other recommendations.

S1959 doesn't affect the internet or much else directly, but based upon the "Congressional findings" it's based upon, it will recommend changes and regulations that will affect the internet and other entities.

It's a waste of time to create another bureaucracy. To me it seems like just another way to vote public moneys out of the coffers and into the hands of twelve congress critters and executive branch lackies and into the hands of expensive consultants. It also seeks to establish an ongoing center for the study of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence at a university somewhere. Believe me, there will be universities clamoring over one another to get the money that goes along with such a center.

dp

[LEK]

There are several bills that have been put into place that when/if some event happens that will require a crack-down on freedoms, these bills will be enacted.

It's an ill wind as blows nobody no good...

[Crickett]

Who knows what will be added to the bill, but as it stands, it looks to me like just another way to expand the size of the federal gov't by creating another bureaucracy called a commission. This legislation is only to create a commission to study violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence as they define these in the bill. The commission, after studying it (which undoubtedly will involve much expense in salaries for the 12 members, travel expenses, consultant fees for their buddies, etc.) is to publish a report on violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and make legislative and other recommendations.

S1959 doesn't affect the internet or much else directly, but based upon the "Congressional findings" it's based upon, it will recommend changes and regulations that will affect the internet and other entities.

It's a waste of time to create another bureaucracy. To me it seems like just another way to vote public moneys out of the coffers and into the hands of twelve congress critters and executive branch lackies and into the hands of expensive consultants. It also seeks to establish an ongoing center for the study of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence at a university somewhere. Believe me, there will be universities clamoring over one another to get the money that goes along with such a center.

dp

Dr. Ron calls it "Neo-Conservative Empire Radicalism". LOL

[dvictr]

>>>>>>>>>


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1959

[dvictr]

`The Congress finds the following:



`(3) 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.

[BeallCanbe]

Nothing new ... it's just to establish the thought police to protect the citizens... they had it already in "1984".

[Give me liberty]

lol did you the read lower part of the bill?

SEC. 899E. PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES WHILE PREVENTING IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE AND HOMEGROWN TERRORISM.

`(a) 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 lies lol

[torchbearer]

Just some advice,
buy your weapons and ammo now while its still legal.

[Trigonx]

we have to take over the congress, thats all there is to it. We can email or call our senators all we want but they are not gonna give a damn.

[torchbearer]

we have to take over the congress, thats all there is to it. We can email or call our senators all we want but they are not gonna give a damn.

i plan on getting into congress this year.. join the second wave: http://www.moneybomb1.com
http://www.joinsanders.com

[Gtex]

So scary indeed.

[CurtisLow]

Oh crap.... Write people!


Use this site to write! Check it out! http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/




.

[CurtisLow]

But now, because criminals murdered thousands of people on September 11, 2001, many are eager to abandon their Constitutional protections.

Have we become a nation of sniveling cowards? If not, please explain how it is that Congress has either bowed to or exploited this fear to become a gang of lawbreakers?

Yesterday, 68 Senators violated their oaths of office. They voted to pass S. 2248, a new law designed to replace the so-called "Protect America Act." This bill violates the Bill of Rights . . .

* It permits the President to spy on Americans without a warrant.

* It grants retroactive immunity to tele-communications companies that collaborated with the Bush administration in previous warrantless spying, thereby creating an incentive for other companies to engage in similar crimes in the future (only Qwest Communications insisted on warrants).

Will this new, un-constitutional power, prevent future terrorist attacks? Of course not, nothing can do that, just as there is no law or power that could completely stop murders by domestic criminals.

Does this new law create a tyranny? That would be an exaggeration. But what will happen when the next terrorist attack comes?

The sniveling cowards among us, and the lawbreakers in Congress, will then seek still more powers.

At one point will our children call this tyranny? Will there be any turning back?

Yesterday, 19 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 1 independent voted to violate the Constitution and their oaths of office. Only 28 Democrats, 1 independent, and ZERO Republicans remained true to their oaths. The Republicans were universally bad.

But please notice that the law could not have passed without the vote of the Democrats!

Let this be clear -- neither political party is going to protect our Constitution, unless WE compel them to do it.

All hope is NOT lost. S. 2248 cannot become law unless the House agrees to its provisions. Fortunately, the House version of this bill, while not perfect, is signficantly better. Our best hope, and we must take it, is to tell the House to stick by their version of the bill.

A list of how the Senate voted is pasted below. Criticize your Senator if he or she voted for it. Ask your House member to reject the provisions of S. 2248.


How the Senate voted . . .

Sen. Daniel Akaka [D, HI] Nay
Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN] Aye
Sen. Wayne Allard [R, CO] Aye
Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY] Aye
Sen. Max Baucus [D, MT] Aye
Sen. B. Evan Bayh [D, IN] Aye
Sen. Robert Bennett [R, UT] Aye
Sen. Joseph Biden [D, DE] Nay
Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, NM] Nay
Sen. Christopher Bond [R, MO] Aye
Sen. Barbara Boxer [D, CA] Nay
Sen. Sherrod Brown [D, OH] Nay
Sen. Samuel Brownback [R, KS] Aye
Sen. Jim Bunning [R, KY] Aye
Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC] Aye
Sen. Robert Byrd [D, WV] Nay
Sen. Maria Cantwell [D, WA] Nay
Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D, MD] Nay
Sen. Thomas Carper [D, DE] Aye
Sen. Robert Casey [D, PA] Aye
Sen. C. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA] Aye
Sen. Hillary Clinton [D, NY] Abstain
Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK] Aye
Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS] Aye
Sen. Norm Coleman [R, MN] Aye
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME] Aye
Sen. Kent Conrad [D, ND] Aye
Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN] Aye
Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX] Aye
Sen. Larry Craig [R, ID] Aye
Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID] Aye
Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC] Aye
Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, CT] Nay
Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R, NC] Aye
Sen. Pete Domenici [R, NM] Aye
Sen. Byron Dorgan [D, ND] Nay
Sen. Richard Durbin [D, IL] Nay
Sen. John Ensign [R, NV] Aye
Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY] Aye
Sen. Russell Feingold [D, WI] Nay
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA] Nay
Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC] Abstain
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA] Aye
Sen. Judd Gregg [R, NH] Aye
Sen. Charles Hagel [R, NE] Aye
Sen. Thomas Harkin [D, IA] Nay
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT] Aye
Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX] Aye
Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK] Aye
Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, HI] Aye
Sen. John Isakson [R, GA] Aye
Sen. Tim Johnson [D, SD] Aye
Sen. Edward Kennedy [D, MA] Nay
Sen. John Kerry [D, MA] Nay
Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D, MN] Nay
Sen. Herbert Kohl [D, WI] Aye
Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ] Aye
Sen. Mary Landrieu [D, LA] Aye
Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, NJ] Nay
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, VT] Nay
Sen. Carl Levin [D, MI] Nay
Sen. Joseph Lieberman [I, CT] Aye
Sen. Blanche Lincoln [D, AR] Aye
Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN] Aye
Sen. Mel Martinez [R, FL] Aye
Sen. John McCain [R, AZ] Aye
Sen. Claire McCaskill [D, MO] Aye
Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY] Aye
Sen. Robert Menendez [D, NJ] Nay
Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D, MD] Aye
Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK] Aye
Sen. Patty Murray [D, WA] Nay
Sen. Ben Nelson [D, NE] Aye
Sen. Bill Nelson [D, FL] Aye
Sen. Barack Obama [D, IL] Abstain
Sen. Mark Pryor [D, AR] Aye
Sen. John Reed [D, RI] Nay
Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] Nay
Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS] Aye
Sen. John Rockefeller [D, WV] Aye
Sen. Ken Salazar [D, CO] Aye
Sen. Bernard Sanders [I, VT] Nay
Sen. Charles Schumer [D, NY] Nay
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL] Aye
Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL] Aye
Sen. Gordon Smith [R, OR] Aye
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME] Aye
Sen. Arlen Specter [R, PA] Aye
Sen. Debbie Ann Stabenow [D, MI] Nay
Sen. Ted Stevens [R, AK] Aye
Sen. John Sununu [R, NH] Aye
Sen. Jon Tester [D, MT] Nay
Sen. John Thune [R, SD] Aye
Sen. David Vitter [R, LA] Aye
Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH] Aye
Sen. John Warner [R, VA] Aye
Sen. Jim Webb [D, VA] Aye
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D, RI] Aye
Rep. Roger Wicker [R, MS-1] Aye
Sen. Ron Wyden [D, OR] Nay

[Deinen]

Woo, my Senator voted no.