Status of the bill in the House and Senate:

A) Why is it necessary to draft a bill specially to crack down on violent activists? We already have laws in which violence is disciplined. So why activists, specifically?

B) What is the implication of the words in the title, “And For Other Purposes” ? Those remain unspecified throughout the entire text of the bill. That leaves a conveniently open-ended interpretation to…. Let the imagination wander: Anything goes.

C) “Radicalization” is not defined in the bill. So politicians can (and will) conveniently interpret what that means, based on their own whims and frankly, their own needs. Nobody wants to be publicly exposed for their wrongdoings, especially corrupt politicians. The fact that our Congress is full of such corrupt individuals is itself a rebuttal to the assumption that certain assertions are “paranoia”, and that the government will be looking out for us. Time to think more analytically.

D) The bill creates a Commission to study the thoughts giving rise to “ideologically based violence”, which “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”. (Emphasis added). So in order to promote our political beliefs, if we use “force” such as throwing a hurl of faxes and phone calls at a Politician’s office, we risk being labeled and treated as terrorists. After all, the definition above specifies the words “use of force OR violence” and does not define “force” in violent physical terms.

E) Note the words in the text of the bill, that the Commission studying the thought models leading to violent radicalization “should not” (a recommendation) crack down on civil liberties, and “should not” conduct racial profiling. Yet, the words “Shall not” (an imperative) are used unremittingly throughout the text of the bill, when connected to protecting Congress and its members. That’s a hint about the bill and its intent, right there.

F) Note also that this bill makes it a crime to “coerce” the government. Yet that term “Coerce” also is not defined. Being left open-ended, and given the statistics which are all over the ACLU’s website of activists (not terrorists) being clamped down on, it is possible and even likely that our letters to the editor or any other attempts to hold our officials accountable will be misconstrued as “coercion”. After all, to hold them accountable is a way to publicly “force” them into cooperating with our best interest and the Constitutional rule of law. Let us never forget that (repeat) politicians don’t like to be exposed for their wrong-doings. Given any window of opportunity, they will always use any tools to protect their own advantage and their own agenda. Including jailing people who hold them accountable.

Just as Cheney already did when confronted by a citizen in a public mall. In addition, he also threatened to place the victim’s child in foster care. After all, “Terrorists” who “Coerce” the government (ie, confront them) aren’t “mentally fit” enough to be parents. True? No, not really. It’s really just an attempt to intimidate vocal people, and that’s just what S 1959 is all about, even while it professes otherwise.

G) Imagine FBI and CIA infiltrating our College campuses. While We, the People pay double for such a spine-chiller: With tuition and our tax dollars. Such is the proposal, in which the Commission to study the beliefs yielding “violent radicalization” would be headquartered in unspecified Universities, nation-wide.

Considering that our college students are our most vocal and impassioned citizens, the intention to quell dissent and free speech has been openly confessed by this part of the proposal. And contrary to the claims of the bill, to place infiltrators/government spies into our college campuses is an act of discrimination against our youth, endangers their free speech, and is clearly intended to do so. Obviously, or they would not be targeting college students for study.

The “terrorists” come marching two by two, haroo, haroo….out of the woodwork! We'd better clamp down on those "terrorists", using the loose definition of "terrorism" in the Patriot Act to our advantage, since it sweeps up religious and peace groups in its net! Those student "Terrorists" had better be clamped down on, turned in to the government, stirred up to a raucus by infiltrators on campus who, after all, MUST report back to the government with proof of their successful studies. And anybody who "coerces" the government to be accountable, is going to be labeled and treated as a terrorist, ie jailed. Fear ye, fear ye! That is the message of this bill.

 1  |  2