H.R. 1955 - Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

H.R. 1955 [110th]: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This is a bill that the Obama administration could have used against the Tea Parties if it had been adopted. The bill in Section 899A defines “violent radicalization” as “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.” It defines “homegrown terrorism” as “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.” Please note the vague definitions regarding force and violence. Who determines who has a “purpose of facilitating” violence? Facilitating is a particularly troublesome word since just pointing out abuses of power could be argued to facilitate a popular uprising against the government, whether that was the real purpose or not (the government would always claim it was). In fact under the definitions in this section the civil rights movement of the 1960s would have easily been considered “homegrown terrorism” since they were using civil disobedience (which I am sure the government classified as “violence”) to facilitate social change. There is no doubt in my mind that the founding fathers would be considered “homegrown terrorists” in the process of “violent radicalization” under these definitions.

If you consider adhering to the Constitution as an “extremist belief system” as most RINOs and progressives do, then Tea Party members who are trying to “advance political...change” would be involved in “violent radicalization” under this bill. This bill establishes a commission to study violent radicalization (i.e. including Tea Parties?) and to come up with better methods to prevent it. The presence of members asking tough questions to their Congress critters on health care seemed to be considered by the mainstream media as “intimidating” and “coercive” in an attempt to “further a political objective.” They have even been implying that protestors have violent intents despite no evidence to that effect. If you read between the lines, this commission would essentially be set up to study and define thought crimes based on the way violent radicalization is defined – George Orwell would be pleased. If you liked the MIAC report, you probably would love the reports generated with this legislation! And yes, Cathy and most of the criminal Congress voted for it!

If Congress wants to study why people might be upset with them, maybe they should actually consider listening to voters for a change and stop trying to targ