Such thought coaching is what preceded our rush to war with Iraq, and the attempted rush to war with Iran, which turned out to be based on hoaxes and soap bubbles anyway. And while Anthrax headliners across America taught every one of us to quake in our boots, and Washington residents were even urged to seal their windows with plastic, as it turned out the Anthrax managed to selectively target Democrats in public office. Your bill now echoes: Fear ye, fear ye!

In fact, the term "radical" may be misleading us Americans to think that you are referring to the dictionary's definition meaning "Carried to the farthest limit". However, the American Heritage Dictionary also defines the word "radical" as "favoring or effecting revolutionary changes, as in political organization". Yet your term "Violent Radicalization" leads the public to believe that "violence" is meant to signify physical violence. Could that be a misleading idea based on the title and text of your bill? Could it be that what you really mean here is doing "radical violence" to political agendas? That does not necessarily involve physical violence. Further, the government's agenda itself may be "radical" by attacking the fundaments of our Constitution.

In addition to being unconstitutional, to target activists is an act of discrimination and, particularly when cloaked in the disguise of terrorist matters, is a very strategic move. To create a Commission on college campuses to study the thought patterns of the most vocal people in our country, namely our College Students, is even more strategic. The notion of Department of Homeland Security personnel walking around our colleges to “study” the thought patterns leading to “violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism” is spine-chilling. Government officials stomping our college grounds? Funded by our own tax dollars? Never!

While your bill states that “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization….by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to the United States citizens” a Congressional meeting also targeted 9-11 truth researchers as “terrorists”. Therefore, your use of the word “terrorism” is to be questioned, as are your motives in targeting the internet as a “terrorist”-breeding propaganda machine.

1) Why use the legal terms that the Commission’s studies “should not” (a recommendation) affect civil liberties, yet the bill unequivocally states that the citizens “shall not” (an imperative) coerce the Government? Your motives to protect the Government’s best interest, but not that of the citizens, have been hereby confessed, in writing and even in proposed law.

 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6