It has finally come to this: the 404 representatives have choose to violate their oaths to the U.S. Constitution by voting, with bipartisan support, for H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. The days of the U.S. Constitution are sadly numbered, 219 Democrats and 185 Republicans have decided the American right to free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the right to petition for redress for grievance may be declared null and void once the H.R. 1955 gain Senate majority of votes and the President’s signature, thus leading the bill to become law someday. I’m really angry about this blatant passing of this very misguided and short-sighted legislation. Thanks a lot, Rep. Jane Harman!
Do you truly realize what this bill may meant to you? It meant that you may NOT be allowed to think, say, profess, demonstrate or exhibit any “extreme” thought, behavior or action against an all-powerful government or you may be considered as “homegrown terrorist” or “violent radical”! This bill, if made into law, would give the federal government the pretext and the powers to use “all options” against any American citizen or a grouping of American citizens demonstrating reasonable or controversial but legitimate actions to challenge or stop any illegal, illegitimate or inappropriate performance, actions and/or policies of the federal government, whether against the American people or the states of the union or against foreign nations. I’m all for an open, transparent and accountable government but the U.S. Congress have, basically, decided to goes the opposite way.
The bill’s definitions are too vague and leave too much open to interpretations, as Michael Vail of Thought-Crime.org pointed out in his blog:
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.
Note that in his blog, the H.R. 1955 have been pretty much “blacklisted” from the media’s attention. I’m also bothered by the fact the bill claimed to protect American constitutional and civil rights and liberties while it would combat ideologically-based violence.
HELLO?!! 
The American Revolutionary War for Independence was an ideologically-based violent event to free the colonies from Great Britain and end its harsh rules and taxations over the colonies. The Founding Fathers of this great country would have been considered as “homegrown, radical and violent terrorists driving an ideologically-based violence” against the British monarchy and its rubber-stamp Parliament if that bill would have been established as law in that time anyway.
Seriously, I’m truly disturbed by this H.R. 1955 bill and have grave misgivings about its purposes to combat certain homegrown terrorists or violent radicals under false pretense. We already have existing federal and state laws and agencies to combat and prosecute, with full, proven evidences, any marginalized or dangerous homegrown group or cell in the United States. Groups such as known bikers’ gangs, eco-terrorists, urban gangs, radical issue-based or ideologically-based activists, etc. Or sleeper or covert terrorist cells, for that matter. This bill would not do much else other than to take significant precedence over existing federal and state laws for the same reasons. Hence the reason for H.R. 1955 calling to establish a National Commission to define and set policies for the federal government to combat “thought-crimes” based on such vague interpretations and would lead to reinforcement of existing laws for that reason alone.
There are groups in the United States have serious and legitimate gripes against the United States government or the executive branch or both. Groups who support the restoration of the U.S. Constitution, the Ron Paul supporters, the Second Vermont Republic, Libertarians, anti-IRS, anti-war or anti-internationalist kinds, even Native American activists. However, I’m also worried that the thought-crime bill, if turned into law, would be used against Republican, conservative or right-wing people or bloggers if there would be a powerful Democrat in the White House by 2009 and beyond, with supports by a Democratic Congress. Why do you think that there were 219 Democrats who voted for it? Most of the names have important connections to the current Democratic candidates running for President. Even Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio voted AGAINST it.
I’m very disappointed at the 185 Republican representatives who lose their common sense and foresightedness for voting for this inappropriate and ill-conceived legislation. Oddly, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, U.S. candidate for President, did not vote for or against it, perhaps he could not get to the Congress in time while he was campaigning around the country? Where were you when you didn’t get the chance to speak out about it, Ron Paul?
However, the bill have yet to reach to the U.S. Senate floor for a two-third majority vote required to get the bill signed into law by the President. The date have not yet been set but it could be soon. If you can, you can email or write letters to your state’s Senators advising them not to support or vote this misguided, inappropriate and short-sighted legislation.
We have the FBI, federal and state law enforcement agencies already investigating or keeping tabs on violent radical or homegrown terrorist groups or individuals in the United States. They do not need new enforcement powers to go after, arrest and detain American citizens who think, say, exhibit, criticize or slam negatively the federal government of the United States and its policies and/or actions.
NO ONE, NO GOVERNMENT, NO RELIGION, NO GROUP, NO CORPORATION AND NO SET OF BELIEFS OR IDEAS ARE ABOVE CRITICISM OR ABOVE THE LAW IN THIS PLANET. PERIOD.
We are all human beings with differences, ideas, beliefs, values, and preferences and we must learn to live with them, deal with them, share with them or debate with them accordingly with respect and understanding, not outright fear, propaganda or paranoia. Otherwise, we may be heading toward a cataclysm event based on this insane departure from common sense.
Quote of the day: “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” ~ Justice Robert H. Jackson.
UPDATE ~ 10.30.2007: *sigh* 
To be honest, I’m bit disappointed and distressed with the follow-up email from the Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown when I bought up my concerns to him about the H.R. 1955 soon to be introduced as a Senate bill. I admit it would be an uphill struggle to get the bill back to the drawing board for deeper scrutiny or be trashed altogether. I really fe
ar for the eventual end of the U.S. Constitution should this inappropriate, ill-conceived legislation become law after enough Senate votes are made to get the President to sign it, as likely. So, here’s the letter:
Thank you for expressing your concerns about H.R.1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act.
H.R.1955 amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of terrorism by those born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States.
This bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security to establish a grant program to help prevent homegrown terrorism and the use of extremist belief systems to facilitate ideologically-based violence. H.R.1955 would also establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States and conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.
In addition, the bill explicitly states that the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to prevent ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism may not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any American citizens or lawful permanent residents.
H.R.1955 passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 404 to 6. Should the Senate consider this legislation, I will keep your views in mind. Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown
Basically, the government cannot violate your constitutional rights while preventing ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism. Okay, fine. Just wait until you criticize the government for taking “extreme” actions too far against American citizens who are really concerned with the abusive behaviors and performances of the government and you may be considered as an extremist bordering upon “violent radicalization” or might become a homegrown terrorist not by choice but by unfortunate circumstance or force. Watch the movie, “Children of Men” in video and you’ll see what I mean. Seriously, watch it.
I’ve read history of monarchial and totalitarian governments of the past using or deciding legislative powers to empower themselves over the people in the name of security or to maintain the status quo of control, often with disastrous or tragic results. In this case, from his speech to the Constitutional Convention on June 28th, 1787, Benjamin Franklin was right to warn of the dangers I’d just pointed out in this blog:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
This video of “America the Beautiful” sang by the great, late Ray Charles: 
