Guilty as charged, I guess. It is certainly my purpose to morally and intellectually pressure my government in furtherance of a political and social objective.

Is Jane Harmon nuts? Is not what I have just described and what she has declared terrorist, not the essence of the democratic process? One of us is dead wrong.

What I find unacceptable is twofold; 1) that Harman has removed that definition (upon which my fate depends) from the Constitution and given it to agents of the state, and 2) that mainstream American media apparently hasn’t even noticed.

Anyone know what Ideologically Based Violence means?

(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term 'ideologically based violence' means 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.

Ideological (adjective) of or pertaining to or characteristic of an orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation. Violence (noun) an act of aggression, as one against a person who resists. Well, then you have to go further and define aggression; (noun) a feeling of hostility that arouses thoughts of attack.

Again, carry me off in cuffs, ‘cause I hope I characterize the thinking of a group, my hostility is against an administration that resists its own laws and, although I never have (nor would) advocate a physical attack against my government, I surely and repeatedly attack it verbally.

That is my right as a citizen. The great James Madison, our fourth president, said “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” Certainly terrorism’s false definition by the Bush administration as a foreign enemy confirms that warning by Madison with heartbreaking accuracy.

Jane Harmon, we can only presume, has never read nor paid much notice to our greatest presidents. If she had, her ears would ring with Lincoln’s admonition that “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves,” adding that “to sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”

Jane apparently sees terrorism behind every palm tree in her homegrown California climate and finds her neighbors radicalized, some of them violently. Her bill makes certain ‘findings’ with which she arms the nation against the terrible destructive power of its own citizenry.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) The development and implementation of methods and processes that can be utilized to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence in the United States is critical to combating domestic terrorism.

No Jane, your Congress is incorrect. What is and always has been critical to our freedoms (including the freedom from terrorism) is the restriction of methods and processes within constitutional law.

(2) The promotion of violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence exists in the United States and poses a threat to homeland security.

You bet it does and that promotion (as I have described and confessed to it) is elemental to the freedoms within a homeland that make it worthy of preserving.

(3) 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.

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5