Category Archives: Forum

From: “rmpjc”

Date: October 25, 2007 2:07:29 PM MDT

To: “BORDC Board of Directors Mailing List”

Subject: ***House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill

 

http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682

House Passes Thought Crime Prevention Bill

10-25-2007

Lee Rogers

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of

2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the

Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown

terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission

and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought

criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill

specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and

uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of

our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican

parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this

bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is

demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization

and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to

define this term of promoting any belief system that the government

considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t

specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is

entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how

much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could

even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief

system. Literally, the government according to this definition can

define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially

they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The

definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(2) 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.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to

further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of

force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted

as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the

definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall

into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined

in the bill is shown below.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism’ means the

use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group

or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within

the United States or any possession of the United States to

intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian

population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in

furtherance of political or social objectives.

Section 899B of the bill goes over the findings of Congress as it

pertains to homegrown terrorism. Particularly alarming is that the

bill mentions the Internet as a main source for terrorist propaganda.

The bill even mentions streams in obvious reference to many of the

patriot and pro-constitution Internet radio networks that have been

formed. It also mentions that homegrown terrorists span all ages and

races indicating that the Congress is stating that everyone is a

potential terrorist. Even worse is that Congress states in their

findings that they should look at draconian police states like

Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom as models to defeat

homegrown terrorists. Literally, these findings of Congress fall

right in line with the growing patriot community.

The Doctor Will See You—In Three Months

The health-care reform debate is in full roar with the arrival of Michael Moore’s documentary Sicko, which compares the U.S. system unfavorably with single-payer systems around the world. Critics of the film are quick to trot out a common defense of the American way: For all its problems, they say, U.S. patients at least don’t have to endure the endless waits for medical care endemic to government-run systems. The lobbying group America’s Health Insurance Plans spells it out in a rebuttal to Sicko: “The American people do not support a government takeover of the entire health-care system because they know that means long waits for rationed care.”In reality, both data and anecdotes show that the American people are already waiting as long or longer than patients living with universal health-care systems. Take Susan M., a 54-year-old human resources executive in New York City. She faithfully makes an appointment for a mammogram every April, knowing the wait will be at least six weeks. She went in for her routine screening at the end of May, then had another because the first wasn’t clear. That second X-ray showed an abnormality, and the doctor wanted to perform a needle biopsy, an outpatient procedure. His first available date: mid-August. “I completely freaked out,” Susan says. “I couldn’t imagine spending the summer with this hanging over my head.” After many calls to five different facilities, she found a clinic that agreed to read her existing mammograms on June 25 and promised to schedule a follow-up MRI and biopsy if needed within 10 days. A full month had passed since the first suspicious X-rays. Ultimately, she was told the abnormality was nothing to worry about, but she should have another mammogram in six months. Taking no chances, she made an appointment on the spot. “The system is clearly broken,” she laments.It’s not just broken for breast exams. If you find a suspicious-looking mole and want to see a dermatologist, you can expect an average wait of 38 days in the U.S., and up to 73 days if you live in Boston, according to researchers at the University of California at San Francisco who studied the matter. Got a knee injury? A 2004 survey by medical recruitment firm Merritt, Hawkins & Associates found the average time needed to see an orthopedic surgeon ranges from 8 days in Atlanta to 43 days in Los Angeles. Nationwide, the average is 17 days. “Waiting is definitely a problem in the U.S., especially for basic care,” says Karen Davis, president of the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care policy.

All this time spent “queuing,” as other nations call it, stems from too much demand and too little supply. Only one-third of U.S. doctors are general practitioners, compared with half in most European countries. On top of that, only 40% of U.S. doctors have arrangements for after-hours care, vs. 75% in the rest of the industrialized world. Consequently, some 26% of U.S. adults in one survey went to an emergency room in the past two years because they couldn’t get in to see their regular doctor, a significantly higher rate than in other countries.

There is no systemized collection of data on wait times in the U.S. That makes it difficult to draw comparisons with countries that have national health systems, where wait times are not only tracked but made public. However, a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.

The Commonwealth survey did find that U.S. patients had the second-shortest wait times if they wished to see a specialist or have nonemergency surgery, such as a hip replacement or cataract operation (Germany, which has national health care, came in first on both measures). But Gerard F. Anderson, a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, says doctors in countries where there are lengthy queues for elective surgeries put at-risk patients on the list long before their need is critical. “Their wait might be uncomfortable, but it makes very little clinical difference,” he says.

The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close.

Few solutions have been proposed for lengthy waits in the U.S., in part, say policy experts, because the problem is rarely acknowledged. But the market is beginning to address the issue with the rise of walk-in medical clinics. Hundreds have sprung up in CVS, Wal-Mart (WMT ), Pathmark, (PTMK ) and other stores—so many that the American Medical Assn. just adopted a resolution urging state and federal agencies to investigate such clinics as a conflict of interest if housed in stores with pharmacies. These retail clinics promise rapid care for minor medical problems, usually getting patients in and out in 30 minutes. The slogan for CVS’s Minute Clinics says it all: “You’re sick. We’re quick.”

The White House won’t allow Justice prosecutors to pursue contempt charges by Congress in the U.S. attorney-firings probe.

By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein

The Washington Post Article Last Updated: 07/20/2007 01:30:03 AM MDT Washington – Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority Thursday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.The position presents serious legal and political obstacles for congressional Democrats, who have begun laying the groundwork for contempt proceedings against current and former White House officials in order to pry loose information about the dismissals.

Under federal law, a statutory contempt citation by the House or Senate must be submitted to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.”

But administration officials argued Thursday that Congress has no power to force a U.S. attorney to pursue contempt charges in cases, such as the prosecutor firings, in which the president has declared that testimony or documents are protected from release by executive privilege. Officials pointed to a Justice Department legal opinion during the Reagan administration, which made the same argument in a case that was never resolved by the courts.

“A U.S. attorney would not be permitted to bring contempt charges or convene a grand jury in an executive privilege case,” said a senior official, who said his remarks reflect a consensus within the administration. “And a U.S. attorney wouldn’t be permitted to argue against the reasoned legal opinion that the Justice Department provided. No one should expect that to happen.”

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, added: “It has long been understood that, in circumstances like these, the constitutional prerogatives of the president would make it a futile and purely political act for Congress to refer contempt citations to U.S. attorneys.”

Mark Rozell, a professor of public policy at George Mason University who has written a book on executive-privilege issues, called the administration’s stance “astonishing.”

“That’s a breathtakingly broad view of the president’s role in this system of separation of powers,” Rozell said. “What this statement is saying is the president’s claim of executive privilege trumps all.”

The administration’s statement is a dramatic attempt to seize the upper hand in an escalating constitutional battle with Congress, which has been trying for months, without success, to compel White House officials to testify and to turn over documents about their roles in the prosecutor firings last year. The Justice Department and White House in recent weeks have been discussing when and how to disclose the stance, and the official said he decided Thursday that it was time to highlight it.

Thursday, a House Judiciary subcommittee voted to lay the groundwork for contempt proceedings against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, following a similar decision last week against former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

The administration has not directly informed Congress of its view.

A spokeswoman for Rep. John Conyers Jr., D-Mich., the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, declined to comment. But other leading Democrats attacked the argument.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., called it “an outrageous abuse of executive privilege. The White House must stop stonewalling and start being accountable to Congress and the American people. No one, including the president, is above the law.”

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the administration is “hastening a constitutional crisis,” and Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said the position “makes a mockery of the ideal that no one is above the law.”

“I suppose the next step would be just disbanding the Justice Department,” he said.