Comments on: Analyzing S 1959 and Analyzing You and Me, Pt. 1

By: Analysing S 1959 and Analysing You and Me, Pt. 3 « Waking the Midnight Sun

Analysing S 1959 and Analysing You and Me, Pt. 3 « Waking the Midnight Sun — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 17:25:21 +0000

[...] 2, 2007 by cadeveo Go here for part 1 and here for part 2 for the [...]

By: The Truth About S 1959 | With Updates « Dj Konservo

The Truth About S 1959 | With Updates « Dj Konservo — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:46:21 +0000

[...] credit for this one. The original source is this !!!Ron Paul supporter, and apparently some folks don’t mind spreading unsubstantiated rumors on the internet, even if they originate in the twisted minds of [...]

By: Analysing S 1959 and Analysing You and Me, Pt. 2 « Waking the Midnight Sun

Analysing S 1959 and Analysing You and Me, Pt. 2 « Waking the Midnight Sun — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 05:07:49 +0000

[...] 30, 2007 by cadeveo Alright, let’s get right into it. If you missed part 1, allow me to [...]

By: cadeveo

cadeveo — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:54:01 +0000

Absolutely, it’s all about the vague wording and the sleight-of-language tricks contained therein. It’s about squashing dissent, not about redressing the injustices and coercion that spark dissent.

But we’ll be talking more about that in part 2.

By: A. Magnus

A. Magnus — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 20:08:54 +0000

S. 1959 basically attemtps to bring about the consolidation of globalist anti-liberty marketing campaigns under one umbrella. Whereas before we had the ‘radical’ leftist movements of the 1960s and 70s (never mind that most were run by CIA or FBI informants) and later on the ‘radical’ militia movement in the 90s (similarly infiltrated by government informants), now we have had the ‘Islamic fascist’ marketing meme roll out since 9/11.

In a nutshell it looks to create a blanket set of conditions by which a disaffected group or individuals who decide to plan on airing their grievances in a visible way can be categorized as ‘radicals’ with an ‘extremist belief system,’ especially when that set of grievances directly challenges members and organizations within the ruling elite. This then allows the government to outlaw that group and by extension anyone else who professes a similar set of grievances.

The wording of the bill hinges on the use of force and violence, but it deliberately does not define them. An economic boycott, like when blacks stopped patronizing white segregationist businesses in the South can easily be considered a use of economic ‘force.’ So too can a sit-in where protestors make it difficult to be removed from the premises of a contentious area. This can be twisted to mean ‘violent’ action according to the wording of this bill.