Forum Post: Political protest is deemed "low level terrorism" by the government.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 8, 2011, 11:14 a.m. EST by Marquee
(192)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If the NDAA passes into law, they're coming after us.
Lol, if protesting is low level terrorism...then what what the fuck is our own government for condemning the people on exercising their constitutional rights?
Mid-level terrorism at least.
at least
The DoD labels it "low level terrorism.
DoD says our own govt' is low level terrorism? you say? or did I read that wrong? any resources?
The nDoD labels protesters as "low-level domestic terrorism." I posted a few sources here. Just follow the links.
Last week the U.S. Senate secretly passed a bill that means the army can detain ANYONE (U.S.A citizen or otherwise) who they see as a "terrorist". The bill grants power to the military to arrest U.S. citizens on American soil and detain them in military prisons forever without offering them the right to legal counsel or even a trial.
This could be used against Occupy protesters. If they see you as anti-government, you could be classified as a "terrorist".
Now the only hope to kill this bill is with a presidential veto. Help demand that President Obama veto the National Defense Authorization Act by signing the petition on the White House website. Spread the word, and for god's sake i hope someone can make Occupy post this info on their facebook!!!!!!
We need 22,000 people to sign before the end of December 2011 http://wh.gov/jeY
Didn't he already say that he was gonna veto it?
I signed. There's a lot of signatures already!! Awesome, provided those petitions do any good.
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/12/06/begins-occupywallstreet-labeled-terrorist-group-alqaeda-81051/
You need to send people to a sign up page first because without an account you cannot participate, trying to causes a loss of the link to the petition.
and that ain't all.......... the list is large
check out Cspan or CNN for the actual hearings with homeland security, the military and other top brass
not brown eyed and have a shaved head.... you too could go
is your church politically vocal and ever expresses outrage... you too could go
complain about IRS, The Fed, The Government, Elected Officials, The Worshipful Money Changers, The Military, property taxes, don't get along with your corrupt neighbors... and on and on.... say bye bye and no need to remember any attorney's digits
and more
see for yourself
Yep, I've seen most of 'em, and it's scary as hell.
Yikes! And I just wrote the IRS a nasty gram last week, basically telling them to GFY.
To them, that was like a preemptive marriage proposal, or at least an early Valentines Card. You're a real sweet heart and a Romeo!
Yeah, I am expecting the gestapo at my door any day now. How a government agency have so much power is just amazing to me. You are guilty in their minds and must prove your innocense.
Yes, losing both the Rule of Law and being only subjected to common law has made life tedious, and at times, difficult for many to enjoy.
welcome to the police state and how the nazis became so powerful, but we have the 2nd and certain americans will only take so much.
[Removed]
quick, everybody put your " Vote Obama " pin on and they will pass you by
So, Freedom of speech our Constitutional right is lumped in with 'Low Level Terrorism?' How un-American!
Ya know? WTF!
quick, everybody put your " Vote Obama " pin on and they will pass you by
http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/12/06/begins-occupywallstreet-labeled-terrorist-group-alqaeda-81051/
There isn't enough room in the prisons to house the OWS demonstrators. Moreover, every arrest they make creates two or more new members of the movement. This is too big for the government to stop or control.
Strengthen your resolve, it will get worse before it gets better, but we absolutely cannot stop.
Hmmm, is that true? I think there is plenty of prison room for those who have demonstrated thus far and I am not seeing the numbers increase. We need to increase the number of active participants to a level which would overwhelm an attempt to stop us.
And do what? This only gets attention as long as they continue to attempt to stop us and we let them try and just keep coming. This movement has to have enough staying power to last through the elections, at the very least. It may take much longer than that.
Such a large gathering costs too much money to withstand the amount of time we need to invest. It's more important that we show our resolve. We can afford to let them guess about our numbers.
Resolve without numbers will get you nowhere. A small number of protestors is not a threat to the 1%. The more people you have on board, the less time it will take.
I don't know what you mean about costs too much for a large gathering. It doesn't cost that much to show up at your local Occupy event.
But there has not been a small number of demonstrators. The number is large, already. It simply needs to remain large. OWS only needs to grow as a response to the actions taken to suppress it. But if it loses steam, then we have a problem.
As to the cost, I had gotten the impression that you were trying to say OWS needed to stage a massive rally in one location (like DC, for instance) and that would be a costly endeavor.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I was talking about more people participating in their local groups. A massive rally in DC would be great, but I realize that would require additional financial and other resources.
I hope the movement as a whole is retaining its numbers or growing. My local Occupy is not growing, it is shrinking, and that's not a good sign.
[Removed]
Groups that fusion centers consider terrorists:
1.anti war activists
2.pro/anti-abortion activists
3.supporters of third party candidates
4.Ron Lawl supporters
5.Anarchists
6.Conspiracy Theorists
7.Environmental activists
8.Hacktivists (ex. anonymous)
Here's the scoop
http://rawstory.com/images/other/vafusioncenterterrorassessment.pdf
Uh. Now that I've skimmed through it, it seems like most groups had some probable cause.
I think we won't be heading to the gulag.
[Removed]
the repelicans are already coming after us.
I don't mind. I wear that as a badge of honor.
come and get me, fuckers
Do you forget that it passed with bi-partisan support and the only reason the democrud president threatens to veto it is because it isn't craftily written as to exempt the military from the rules of the Geneva Convention in regards to torture?
I hadn't heard that piece about the torture. I had seen the bi-partisanship on this deal.
I've also seen that portion of the legislation, and there is a bit of obfuscation taking place with the way it has been written - I've forgotten the precise numbers of the items, but they are not entirely chronological, making it difficult to sort out.
The repelican party is done, you are aware, right?
Just look on the Whitehouse's website for the administrations official statement. Be not led further into the bi-party black hole. That is one of the grandest Vaudeville acts ever,and highly effective it has been.
One would like to think he was going to veto it because it violates constitutional rights. It doesn't. You have no rights under the Incorporated Government's Constitution. You have only privileges.
Very few know Constitutional Law better than our the president, and I've yet to catch him lying or operating in direct conflict to the Incorporated government's Constitution.
I did not realize the incorporated government had its own Constitution.
Yes, there are two, The Constitution for the United States of America and THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
The first, organic Constitution was a bankruptcy pact after the American Revolution, which was paid off when Jackson was in office.
The second was also a reorganization bankruptcy pact as a result of not being able to pay the Civil War debt, of which this nation has never managed to do.
FDR reorganized in 1933 with seemingly pure evil intentions, maybe add in some weakness and carnal greed for good measure, and the results firmly set the stage for where we are today, as a nation of slaves without any rights.
I had never heard that.
How interesting. Clearly you aren't referring to the Bill of Rights - so . . ..
Which of the Seven Articles of the Constitution do you refer?
By the way, as far as I know, it hasn't been taught in any public or state funded schools, since 1959.
I believe you are right. The process of participation in our system of governance has not been taught in some time.
Why is that?
Perhaps it is simply easier at the local level to avoid teaching the kids how to impact decision making in the community where they are taught.
Perhaps it fits with the ideology spread by BF Skinner through the Walden books, reviewed by Vance Packard in The People Shapers, 1977
Perhaps the termination of civics education was a reflection of Skinner's ideology, and was disseminated among the school systems using the educational system itself.
http://www.gemworld.com/USAVSUS.HTM
Ingest this with an open mind and we'll continue if you like. This is not my website, there are many like it, this one is a nice side by side comparison.
it's nonsense.
It makes an assertion it never backs up - that any Constitution is a bankruptcy pact.
Doesn't say anything about bankruptcy.
Ask yourself who benefits from spreading such a perception?
Try Blacks Law. Everyone should have a copy as well as an 1828 Dictionary.
If that doesn't satisfy you, I suppose I could point you to SCOTUS rulings which do indeed substantiate and uphold that both forms of governance do indeed exist in the United States, albeit, the seats are all empty in the organic form.
you are still making assertions without supporting facts.
which of the first seven articles of the Constitution demonstrates that it was designed as a bankruptcy pact . . .
It is my guess that the indebtedness to which you refer was an unintended consequence of our separation from England, an externality associated with our Declaration of Independence.
Pray tell, why would it be needed for the independent and prospering colonies to exist with merely the declaration of independence? Many patriots were indeed opposed to the federal union.
The indebtedness was, plain and simple, a result of money borrowed to finance the Revolution, and from a nation actually in a poor position to lend. Wars are not inexpensive and at that time in our nation's history, money was actually backed by silver and/or gold.
Much different than our money system after Lincoln's devastating war, which de facto, enslaved all.
Article 6 concerns the United States itself. First, it guarantees that the United States under the Constitution would assume all debts and contracts entered into by the United States under the Articles of Confederation. It sets the Constitution and all laws and treaties of the United States to be the supreme law of the country. Finally, it requires all officers of the United States and of the states to swear an oath of allegiance to the United States and the Constitution when taking office.
Ah, you mean where it says:
Article VI
Doesn't say anything about bankruptcy, but it does clearly state that all previous agreements would be honored.
Ok, it's easy enough to see how much was borrowed, rate of interest, from whom and when the note was due.
100+ million real 1776 dollars was a lot of money of which was originally borrowed under different terms than the colonies could repay. There was a default.
Keep digging.
Once you get past this one, the post civil war stuff is really ugly, yet, things only get uglier in the early 1900's, to then really get out of hand in 1933.
All the terms are hidden in plain sight and easy enough to those who want to know and seek it, to find and read it with their own eyes.
It's ugly.
Do you know the difference in Article III and Article IV courts?
We have both in the United States. A person typically gets screwed in Article IV courts, where you can be incarcerated for crimes of which no harm has been done, or victim exists.
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm
You keep digging.
I'm busy.
I'm sure the revolution did cost money - after all, you could not overthrow the rule of British Colonialism over her colonies without muskets, and balls
I do find it interesting, under Article III Section 1, that:
and in my opinion, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has indeed, acted with very, very bad behavior . . .
You could google up a YouTube of the swearing in of President Obama - note how excited the Chief Justice is, I have no doubt his slip was planned, that had the President not caught the Chief Justice's planned error in recitation, the far right fringe would have been seen to exclaim:
and thus there would have been no end of the claims of his illegitimacy to hold that august, oval, Office.
It is very easy to determine that our nation was roughly 150 million (of 1776 money) in debt at the end of the Revolutionary War. All other nations involved too, have the same information, as well as how it was financed, published.
It had to be financed and the note came due.
Ease into it slowly and try again. It's far from non-sense although I do agree it would be better served to be devoid of the NWO and blue lodge rhetoric.
The cost of the Civil War, was roughly, in 1851 real money, 330 million per head of remaining citizens. It was the most expensive war ever fought since, and including all since totaled, up until the year 2000-ish to date. This also includes loss of life, not just money.
Mind boggling huh?
[Removed]
[Removed]
quick, everybody put your " Vote Obama " pin on and they will pass you by
This is horrible. We have the right to protest
Nothing new here: I think governments everywhere have always deemed protest as low level terrorism.