From the Baltimore Sun
"With overwhelming bipartisan support, Rep. Jane Harman's 'Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act' passed the House 404-6 late last month [October 2007] and now rests in Sen. Joe Lieberman's Homeland Security Committee. Swift Senate passage appears certain.
Not since the 'Patriot Act' of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The historian Henry Steele Commager, denouncing President John Adams' suppression of free speech in the 1790s, argued that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect government from dissenters but to provide a legal means for citizens to oppose a government they didn't trust. Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence not only proclaimed the right to dissent but declared it a people's duty, under certain conditions, to alter or abolish their government.
In that vein, diverse groups vigorously oppose Ms. Harman's effort to stifle dissent. Unfortunately, the mainstream press and leading presidential candidates remain silent.
Ms. Harman, a California Democrat, thinks it likely that the United States will face a native brand of terrorism in the immediate future and offers a plan to deal with ideologically based violence.
But her plan is a greater danger to us than the threats she fears. Her bill tramples constitutional rights by creating a commission with sweeping investigative power and a mandate to propose laws prohibiting whatever the commission labels 'homegrown terrorism.'
The proposed commission is a menace through its power to hold hearings, take testimony and administer oaths, an authority granted to even individual members of the commission - little Joe McCarthys - who will tour the country to hold their own private hearings. An aura of authority will automatically accompany this congressionally authorized mandate to expose native terrorism.
Ms. Harman's proposal includes an absurd attack on the Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with 'access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda,' and legalizes an insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The misnamed 'Center of Excellence,' which would function after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives the semblance of intellectual research to what is otherwise the suppression of dissent.
While its purpose is to prevent terrorism, the bill doesn't criminalize any specific conduct or contain penalties. But the commission's findings will be cited by those who see a terrorist under every bed and who will demand enactment of criminal penalties that further restrict free speech and other civil liberties. Action contrary to the commission's findings will be interpreted as a sign of treason at worst or a lack of patriotism at the least.
While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates 'thought police,' it defines 'homegrown terrorism' as 'planned' or 'threatened' use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of 'political or social objectives.' That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.
Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government.
The bill defines 'violent radicalization' as promoting an 'extremist belief system.' But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical 'belief systems' as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change.
Examples of the resulting crackdowns on such protests include the conviction and execution of anarchists tied to Chicago's 1886 Haymarket Riot. Hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee for several decades during the Cold War and the solo hearings by a member of that committee's Senate counterpart, Joseph McCarthy, demonstrate the dangers inherent in Ms. Harman's legislation.
Ms. Harman denies that her bill is a threat to the First Amendment. It clearly states that no measure to prevent homegrown terrorism should violate 'constitutional rights, civil rights or civil liberties.'
But the present administration has demonstrated, in its response to criticism regarding torture, that it can't be trusted to honor those rights."
From the National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers
"On October 23, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 by a vote of 404-6. The bill will be referred out of committee this week and will then go to the Senate floor. The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly oppose this legislation because it will likely lead to the criminalization of beliefs, dissent and protest, and invite more draconian surveillance of Internet communications.
This bill would establish a Commission to study and report on 'facts and causes' of 'violent radicalism' and 'extremist belief systems.' It defines 'violent radicalism' as 'adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.' The term 'extremist belief system' is not defined; it could refer to liberalism, nationalism, socialism, anarchism, communism, etc.
'Ideologically based violence' is defined in the bill as the 'use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.' Thus, 'force' and 'violence' are used interchangeably. If a group of people blocked the doorway of a corporation that manufactured weapons, or blocked a sidewalk during an anti-war demonstration, it might constitute the use of 'force' to promote 'political beliefs.'
The bill charges that the Internet 'has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.' This provision could be used to conduct more intrusive surveillance of our Internet communications without warrants.
This legislation does not criminalize conduct, but may well lead to criminalizing ideas or beliefs in violation of the First Amendment. By targeting the Internet, it may result in increased surveillance of Internet communications in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The National Lawyers Guild and the Society of American Law Teachers strongly urge the Senate to refuse to pass the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007." Source
From RogueGovernment.Com
"This bill is completely insane. It literally allows the government to define any and all crimes including thought crime as violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Obviously, this legislation is unconstitutional on a number of levels and it is clear that all 404 representatives who voted in favor of this bill are traitors and should be removed from office immediately. The treason spans both political parties and it shows us all that there is no difference between them. The bill will go on to the Senate and will likely be passed and signed into the law by George W. Bush. Considering that draconian legislation like the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act have already been passed, there seems little question that this one will get passed as well. This is more proof that our country has been completely sold out by a group of traitors at all levels of government." Source
From Several Sources
Only 6 members of the House of Representatives voted against this bill:
Jeff Flake of Arizona
Dana Rohrabacher of California
Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii
Jerry Costello of Illinois
Dennis Kucinich of Ohio
John Duncan of Tennessee
From Free New York Blog
"I’ve got a question for you legal scholars; this part defines what a homegrown terrorist is:
(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.
Doesn’t this define the U.S. Government and all special interests as terrorists since they violate the constitutional rule of law to commit violence and threats of violence against persons or property of other segments of the civilian population for the furtherance of political or social objectives?" Source
Webmaster's Comments
When H.R. 1955 was considered by the House of Representatives, it was treated as non-controversial. But it clearly is! Rules were suspended. There was no serious discussion. Why?
House passage of this bill is nothing less than ominous and sinister.
This bill speaks to circumventing the First Amendment and our fundamental right to criticize government. Laws are already in effect having to do with violence; further laws against same would be redundant and thereby unnecessary.
It is fair to judge that in the minds of some members of Congress new actions are needed to threaten American citizens with the express purpose of causing us to fear repercussions when we employ our right to think freely and speak freely.
"Terrorism" and "terrorist" are bogeyman terms. In effect, H.R. 1955 suggests that exercising free thought and exercising free speech may, in future, be treated as criminal activities deserving of orange suits, torture, forfeiture of due legal process in defending oneself, and disappearing into the abyss of concentration camps (some of which have already been built and are standing by). The conscious intent of this horrendous bill is to scare the hell out of dissenters so we will cease criticizing abuses of power by the executive, legislative, judicial, and secret police branches of our government. The conscious intent of this bill is to terrify critics of government!
The "arrogancia dementia" of certain elected officials has reached the point where they are over-stepping their roles as servants and are attempting to erase the sovereignty of we the people. It is not the just role of servants to tell their bosses what they can think and say! It is a form of treason for elected officials to assert sovereignty over we the people.
Unfortunately, the problem with run-amok elected officials can not now be solved at the polls on election day. Too many voting jurisdictions employ voting machines that can not be trusted. We can not throw the bums out on election day!
California, in 2007, reviewed its voting machines and found that they could be easily rigged to throw elections. This resulted in the decertification of said machines. Other states should follow California's example, but are not doing so. Too many elected officials like machines that can be rigged to keep them in office. Too many insiders such as registrars of voters have been bought by the vendors of dirty machines. Update December 18, 2007: Colorado's Secretary of State has disqualified thousands of that state's voting machines.
The We the People Foundation has a federal lawsuit in process which seeks to have all voting machines in the United States outlawed and replaced with paper ballots to be hand-marked and hand-counted in full view of concerned citizens. This suit involves 150 plaintiffs representing all 50 states. Media are bending over backwards to prevent American citizens from learning about this action. (It is naive to believe that the media are not part of our problem with bad government in the U.S.)
Let us beseech Divine Providence to ensure the success of this "Clean Elections Lawsuit".
Sanitizing our elections process would guarantee the integrity of future elections so that elected officials would not be insulated from accountability. So they would once again realize the importance of being responsive to the will of the sovereign people ~ and not play games with treasonous legislation such as H.R. 1955.
Ruh, roh! There's a SWAT team pounding on my door!
Now, put the foregoing into context of the following:
Military Dictatorship In U.S. Very Possible Says Retired General Tommy Franks
by Douglas MacDonald
General Tommy Franks says that if another attack on the U.S. occurs which results in high casualties, the Constitution will likely be scrapped in favor of a military dictatorship.
In a magazine* article, Franks, the former commander of the military's Central Command, warned that if terrorists successfully used a weapon of mass destruction in the U.S. or anywhere else in the "Western world", it would have grave consequences for our republican form of government.
If such an event were to happen, Franks stated, "... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we've seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy."
Franks continues and says,"It means that the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world - it may be in the United States of America - that causes our population to question our own Constitution and begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution."
Franks is the first high-ranking U.S. official to openly speculate that American democracy could be scrapped in favor of a military dictatorship.
*Cigar Aficionado Magazine
Click here to sign petition against H.R. 1955 (S. 1959)
Click here to contact your senators
Links to other relevant websites: