Thoughtcrime Bill Goose-steps Through Congress

In the "just when you thought it couldn't get worse" department, "our" government is busily following up the incredibly odious PATRIOT act (an act so misnamed it's the moral equivalent of Hitler calling the Nuremberg laws the LOVETHEMJEWS laws...) with the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act", which basically turns anyone critical of the government into a terrorist -- which means, of course, detention without charges, trial, or reprieve. As shown here, anyone who thinks the Constitution has been subverted -- and this includes everyone from granola-chewing hippies who think Bush is a Nazi to spittle-spewing ultraconservatives who think Bush is a commie -- meets the government's definition of a "political radical", thus proving their point and pegging the irony meter at "Wake me when it's over".

There is a vast difference between breaking the law in the form of non-violent protest, and terrorism. Should you arrest hippies who block the streets or Christians who block abortion clinics? Of course. The whole point of civil disobedience is to be arrested, to show, in essence, that you're serious about what you believe in. Arrest them, make them spend a fun night in the drunk tank, send 'em on their way with a story to tell about how they stood up to the Man and gave 'im what for! That's the American way. However, claiming that such people are terrorists -- even worse, claiming that anyone who merely advocates civil disobedience -- is a terrorist, is such a gross violation of basic liberty that it actually serves to justify genuine violence. MLK Jr said it -- those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable. (Quoting from memory, probably slightly incorrectly. Ask me if I care.)

It is astounding how terrified the government seems to be, or how desperately they're looking for hobgoblins to scare the rest of us with. Since this is a Democrat-sponsored bill, it seems its sole purpose is to make the Dems look "tough on terrorism". This should not be a surprise -- it was the Democrats who, after the OK City attacks, tried to ram through an endless series of bills clamping down on "Militias" and it was Bill Clinton who tried to mandate back doors in all encryption and blamed the bombing on "Right wing radio talk show hosts". Anyone who thinks their civil liberties will be safer with Hilary than with Giuliani is kidding themselves, dangerously.

Fact is, we have a right to advocate criminal action. This was established by the Supreme Court in 1969 in Brandenburg vs. Ohio. If you feel that violence is the only answer, you have the right to say so, to spell out your reasons, and let others read and judge. You do not have the right to act on your ideas, of course, but that's not at issue here. No new laws are needed to punish those who commit criminal acts -- these laws are aimed squarely at those who commit thoughtcrime.


    No Trackbacks


Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  1. uafbum says:

    Reading things like this only makes me feel more justified in owning my own firearms. I just hope that the pendulum will swing back to sanity in the near future, before violence against the government becomes the only answer left.

Add Comment

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.