Dems Act Quickly To Pass Obama's Fascist State Legislation

[travelinman67]

BTW, dback...

...in all your posts, you still haven't responded to the content of this thread...

[Cap'n Cat]

BTW, dback...

...in all your posts, you still haven't responded to the content of this thread...

I think he's still clearing the room from your bombast and hate.

[dbackjon]

BTW, dback...

...in all your posts, you still haven't responded to the content of this thread...

That is why I am looking for links/sources, so I can properly research and formulate a response.

[travelinman67]

BTW, dback...

...in all your posts, you still haven't responded to the content of this thread...

That is why I am looking for links/sources, so I can properly research and formulate a response.

That is why you are wasting my time, so you can search for technical errors, develop a straw man argument, and rationalize an unlawful, un-American policy concocted by YOUR party.

It was pretty tricky, but the articles were still there...







Whoa...look at you, dback!!! ...now you have all the sticks necessary to construct your straw man...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

So I've been reading up on this...

still haven't found any evidence that this program will be anything more than a national reconstitution of the CCC other than requiring all citizens of high school age partake. Compulsory national service is required in most countries... and I don't frankly see a problem with it. Still haven't found any proof of the malarkey "re-education" from any source other than tin-foil types.

As for the "stripping of their first amendment rights... what a load of pants. What the bill states is that the national service org. CANNOT be used as a political organizing tool. It's a safeguard... it doesn't restrict political activities of the participants outside their time in the national service org... which basically means it's no different than the restriction placed on military personnel in that regard. It's a safeguard to PREVENT political abuse of the group.

[Cap'n Cat]

T''s panties are in a bunch.

[dbackjon]

So you are 100% opposed to any type of profiling, T-man?

[dbackjon]

BTW - I looked for pre-Obama posts on the fusion centers from you - couldn't find any.

Why didn't you post this back in 2007, here or at ***?

ACLU - What's Wrong With Fusion Centers - Executive Summary
A new institution is emerging in American life: Fusion Centers. These state, local and regional institutions were originally created to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. Though they developed independently and remain quite different from one another, for many the scope of their mission has quickly expanded - with the support and encouragement of the federal government - to cover "all crimes and all hazards." The types of information they seek for analysis has also broadened over time to include not just criminal intelligence, but public and private sector data, and participation in these centers has grown to include not just law enforcement, but other government entities, the military and even select members of the private sector.

These new fusion centers, over 40 of which have been established around the country, raise very serious privacy issues at a time when new technology, government powers and zeal in the "war on terrorism" are combining to threaten Americans' privacy at an unprecedented level.

Moreover, there are serious questions about whether data fusion is an effective means of preventing terrorism in the first place, and whether funding the development of these centers is a wise investment of finite public safety resources. Yet federal, state and local governments are increasing their investment in fusion centers without properly assessing whether they serve a necessary purpose.

There's nothing wrong with the government seeking to do a better job of properly sharing legitimately acquired information about law enforcement investigations - indeed, that is one of the things that 9/11 tragically showed is very much needed.

But in a democracy, the collection and sharing of intelligence information - especially information about American citizens and other residents - need to be carried out with the utmost care. That is because more and more, the amount of information available on each one of us is enough to assemble a very detailed portrait of our lives. And because security agencies are moving toward using such portraits to profile how "suspicious" we look.1

New institutions like fusion centers must be planned in a public, open manner, and their implications for privacy and other key values carefully thought out and debated. And like any powerful institution in a democracy, they must be constructed in a carefully bounded and limited manner with sufficient checks and balances to prevent abuse.

Unfortunately, the new fusion centers have not conformed to these vital requirements.

Since no two fusion centers are alike, it is difficult to make generalized statements about them. Clearly not all fusion centers are engaging in improper intelligence activities and not all fusion center operations raise civil liberties or privacy concerns. But some do, and the lack of a proper legal framework to regulate their activities is troublesome. This report is intended to serve as a primer that explains what fusion centers are, and how and why they were created. It details potential problems fusion centers present to the privacy and civil liberties of ordinary Americans, including:

Ambiguous Lines of Authority. The participation of agencies from multiple jurisdictions in fusion centers allows the authorities to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection while evading accountability and oversight through the practice of "policy shopping."
Private Sector Participation. Fusion centers are incorporating private-sector corporations into the intelligence process, breaking down the arm's length relationship that protects the privacy of innocent Americans who are employees or customers of these companies, and increasing the risk of a data breach.
Military Participation. Fusion centers are involving military personnel in law enforcement activities in troubling ways.
Data Fusion = Data Mining. Federal fusion center guidelines encourage whole sale data collection and manipulation processes that threaten privacy.
Excessive Secrecy. Fusion centers are hobbled by excessive secrecy, which limits public oversight, impairs their ability to acquire essential information and impedes their ability to fulfill their stated mission, bringing their ultimate value into doubt.

The lack of proper legal limits on the new fusion centers not only threatens to undermine fundamental American values, but also threatens to turn them into wasteful and misdirected bureaucracies that, like our federal security agencies before 9/11, won't succeed in their ultimate mission of stopping terrorism and other crime.

The information in this report provides a starting point from which individuals can begin to ask informed questions about the nature and scope of intelligence programs being conducted in their communities. The report concludes with a list of recommendations for Congress and state legislatures.

[dbackjon]

Or was it no problem when The Bush Admin identified anti-war protesters, gay-rights groups, environmental groups etc as watch targets, since you disagree with them in the first place?

[dbackjon]

And yes, I have had concerns about the whole set up, the existance and scope of the DHS since day one.

Maybe if, instead of trying to be divisive, realized that there is common ground about people that value liberty from all spectrums of the political landscape.

You are falling (or are you doing their work??) for the trap that the Washington/New York power brokers want - divide the opposition, get them bickering among themselves, so they can consilidate even further the power they have.

[UNI88]

So I've been reading up on this...

still haven't found any evidence that this program will be anything more than a national reconstitution of the CCC other than requiring all citizens of high school age partake. Compulsory national service is required in most countries... and I don't frankly see a problem with it. Still haven't found any proof of the malarkey "re-education" from any source other than tin-foil types.

As for the "stripping of their first amendment rights... what a load of pants. What the bill states is that the national service org. CANNOT be used as a political organizing tool. It's a safeguard... it doesn't restrict political activities of the participants outside their time in the national service org... which basically means it's no different than the restriction placed on military personnel in that regard. It's a safeguard to PREVENT political abuse of the group.

Thanks for the research. These are both what I suspected when I read the first couple of posts but didn't have the time to check.

[travelinman67]

So I've been reading up on this...

still haven't found any evidence that this program will be anything more than a national reconstitution of the CCC other than requiring all citizens of high school age partake. Compulsory national service is required in most countries... and I don't frankly see a problem with it. Still haven't found any proof of the malarkey "re-education" from any source other than tin-foil types.

As for the "stripping of their first amendment rights... what a load of pants. What the bill states is that the national service org. CANNOT be used as a political organizing tool. It's a safeguard... it doesn't restrict political activities of the participants outside their time in the national service org... which basically means it's no different than the restriction placed on military personnel in that regard. It's a safeguard to PREVENT political abuse of the group.

Mandatory participation in any government chaptered "service organization" is forced labor. In this case, forced child labor or enslavement that "requires" the slave be relocated to a "camp" for "education". It's all there in plain language...

re: political activity...note the key element..."...a participant...". Not an organization, but the individual...

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1388/text

SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
‘(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:

1‘(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

1‘(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

1‘(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

‘(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

1‘(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

1‘(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

‘(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

‘(8) Providing a direct benefit to

‘(A) a business organized for profit;

‘(B) a labor organization;

‘(C) a partisan political organization;

‘(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

‘(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

‘(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

‘(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

‘(b) Ineligible Organizations- No assistance provided under this subtitle may be provided to the following types of organizations (including the participation of a participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle in activities conducted by such organizations) or to organizations that are co-located on the same premises as the following organizations:

‘(1) Organizations that provide or promote abortion services, including referral for such services.

‘(2) For-profit organizations, political parties, labor organizations, or organizations engaged in political or legislative advocacy.

1‘(3) Organizations that have been indicted for voter fraud.

‘(c) Nondisplacement of Employed Workers or Other Volunteers- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not perform any services or duties or engage in activities which

‘(1) would otherwise be performed by an employed worker as part of his or her assigned duties as an employee or by another volunteer who is not a participant in an approved national service position; or

‘(2) will supplant the hiring of employed workers or work of such other volunteers.’.

...and...

SEC. 2208. PROGRAMS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.
Section 225 (42 U.S.C. 5025) is amended

(L) by adding at the end the following:

‘(13) Programs that strengthen community efforts in support of homeland security.

What's even more laughable, is that the original Bill language identifed these Community Civilian Corps "education" faciliities as "Camps" under direction of a "Superintendent", and only at the last minute, realizing the onerous and fascist sound of the language, replaced the name "Community" with "National", "Camp" with "Campus" and "Superintendent" with "Campus Director"...

‘(2) CAMPUS DIRECTOR- The term ‘campus director’, with respect to a Corps campus, means the head of the campus under section 155(d).

‘(3) CORPS- The term ‘Corps’ means the National Civilian Community Corps required under section 155 as part of the Civilian Community Corps Program.

‘(4) CORPS CAMPUS- The term ‘Corps campus’ means the facility or central location established as the operational headquarters and boarding place for particular Corps units.’;

Will have more for you in a bit...gotta run an errand...

[travelinman67]

So I've been reading up on this...

still haven't found any evidence that this program will be anything more than a national reconstitution of the CCC other than requiring all citizens of high school age partake. Compulsory national service is required in most countries... and I don't frankly see a problem with it. Still haven't found any proof of the malarkey "re-education" from any source other than tin-foil types.

As for the "stripping of their first amendment rights... what a load of pants. What the bill states is that the national service org. CANNOT be used as a political organizing tool. It's a safeguard... it doesn't restrict political activities of the participants outside their time in the national service org... which basically means it's no different than the restriction placed on military personnel in that regard. It's a safeguard to PREVENT political abuse of the group.

Thanks for the research. These are both what I suspected when I read the first couple of posts but didn't have the time to check.

"Thanks for the research"...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

T,

It's still no different than the restriction on military personnel... which basically ensures that the organization won't be used for political purposes or to advance political agendas. It's a safeguard.

And again, compulsory national service exists in most nations of the world. In a nation that by it's founding requires advanced citizenship, it seems to me to be a good way to reconnect people to that reality.

[dbackjon]

Mixed feelings on compulsary national service...

How do you feel about military drafts?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Mixed feelings on compulsary national service...

How do you feel about military drafts?

I feel ALL Americans should have to register, and in the case of a national emergency, should be called upon.

[AZGrizFan]

Mixed feelings on compulsary national service...

How do you feel about military drafts?

Here's my proposal:

Graduate high school. 3 years of required military service. Free college education. Not GI bill, but actual tuition paid at whatEVER school you can qualify to get in to. Have a GPA requirement for the program to continue year-over-year, but other than that, the college education is at the expense of the government.

[dbackjon]

Mixed feelings on compulsary national service...

How do you feel about military drafts?

Here's my proposal:

Graduate high school. 3 years of required military service. Free college education. Not GI bill, but actual tuition paid at whatEVER school you can qualify to get in to. Have a GPA requirement for the program to continue year-over-year, but other than that, the college education is at the expense of the government.

And what about us gays? and does the military NEED that many people? What about people with health issues that render them un fit for military, but able to do other things?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Mixed feelings on compulsary national service...

How do you feel about military drafts?

Here's my proposal:

Graduate high school. 3 years of required military service. Free college education. Not GI bill, but actual tuition paid at whatEVER school you can qualify to get in to. Have a GPA requirement for the program to continue year-over-year, but other than that, the college education is at the expense of the government.

with the caveat that it be a public university.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Here's my proposal:

Graduate high school. 3 years of required military service. Free college education. Not GI bill, but actual tuition paid at whatEVER school you can qualify to get in to. Have a GPA requirement for the program to continue year-over-year, but other than that, the college education is at the expense of the government.

And what about us gays? and does the military NEED that many people? What about people with health issues that render them un fit for military, but able to do other things?

dunno about Z, but I support gays in the military. everyone can serve who is able. as for the physically incapable... desk duty is available...

[travelinman67]

T,

It's still no different than the restriction on military personnel... which basically ensures that the organization won't be used for political purposes or to advance political agendas. It's a safeguard.

And again, compulsory national service exists in most nations of the world. In a nation that by it's founding requires advanced citizenship, it seems to me to be a good way to reconnect people to that reality.

So then, being a "mandatory" participation program which you acknowledge has the same political restrictions as military personnel (which isn't true...since military personel can voice politically divergent viewpoints so long as they're not deemed against the military's mission), then by your words, this is Congresses way of instituting the draft, with their soldiers being subverted to be used to spy against and police other Americans?

Good to see you understand the serious implications of this bill, TTBF...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

wow... that's a lot of words put in to my mouth chief.

1. Military personnel are forbade from participating in electoral politics while on duty. While they are permitted to solicit their government, so too would be any member of the CCC

2. I still haven't read ANYWHERE that these two articles are linked in anyway... except in your own head.

[hank scorpio]

Mixed feelings on compulsary national service...

How do you feel about military drafts?

Here's my proposal:

Graduate high school. 3 years of required military service. Free college education. Not GI bill, but actual tuition paid at whatEVER school you can qualify to get in to. Have a GPA requirement for the program to continue year-over-year, but other than that, the college education is at the expense of the government.

A standing army of roughly 10,000,000 people would be unsustanable.

[D1B]

Here's my proposal:

Graduate high school. 3 years of required military service. Free college education. Not GI bill, but actual tuition paid at whatEVER school you can qualify to get in to. Have a GPA requirement for the program to continue year-over-year, but other than that, the college education is at the expense of the government.

A standing army of roughly 10,000,000 people would be unsustanable.

Unless you expand the definition of service to include non-military endeavors.

[travelinman67]

wow... that's a lot of words put in to my mouth chief.

1. Military personnel are forbade from participating in electoral politics while on duty. While they are permitted to solicit their government, so too would be any member of the CCC

2. I still haven't read ANYWHERE that these two articles are linked in anyway... except in your own head.

1. The language is specific. THE PARTICIPANT, not the "organization", may not engage in...

(1) Attempting to influence legislation.

(2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes.

(3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing.

(4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.

(5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office.

(6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials.

(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

(8) Providing a direct benefit to

(A) a business organized for profit;

(B) a labor organization;

(C) a partisan political organization;

(D) a nonprofit organization that fails to comply with the restrictions contained in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 except that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent participants from engaging in advocacy activities undertaken at their own initiative; and

(E) an organization engaged in the religious activities described in paragraph (7), unless Corporation assistance is not used to support those religious activities.

(9) Conducting a voter registration drive or using Corporation funds to conduct a voter registration drive.

(10) Such other activities as the Corporation may prohibit.

...subsection (b) pertains to organizations...

As for your concerns about a link between these two articles...the connection is plain as day...

OBAMA ADMIN + DEMOCRAT CONGRESS = FASCIST POLICIES

What's remarkable is that you or any American would attempt to defend these unprincipled power grabs.

Those who position themselves in favor of unconstitutional, rights usurping legislation and policies, in my eyes belie a politics not beneficial to the country as a whole, but rather do so for personal gratification and gain. Bush did it to compensate for his incompetence as a commander, Obama's doing it to consolidate Party strength. Both are detestable. And I can earnestly declare that, because in MY AMERICA, any removal of rights is an attack on MY COUNTRY.