“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin

I would guess that most, if not all who are reading this are not homegrown terrorists, or any type of terrorist for that matter. Well, just to be sure, our bloated and power hungry government is going to try to make sure that it stays that way.

On October, 23, 2007 the House of Representatives quietly and unanimously passed H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. At first read, this bill may make sense. Who wouldn’t want to prevent those evil Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from setting up shop in the US? I am almost certain that this is the enemy our representatives had in mind when drafting and voting for this piece of legislation. After all, this is the enemy we are fighting right now, right? Think again! This bill is worded so vaguely that it would not be a stretch to think that you or I could be labeled as terrorists for simply expressing opposition to the government or standing up for your religious/non-religious beliefs.

While I would encourage everyone to read the bill on their own, I will break it down for you:

The purpose of the bill is to establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism. So what does this mean? Let’s start with a couple of definitions as defined by the bill.

Violent Radicalization - 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.

Ideologically Based Violence - 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.

Homegrown Terrorism - 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.

The bill calls for the implementation of “methods and processes” for preventing this radicalization including trying to understand the motivating factors involved. It points out that this commission is necessary to find the self-radicalized and unaffiliated individual homegrown terrorists that would be acting on their own without any direction from a larger organization. It also specifically blames the internet as a facilitator to this radicalization and violence.

So you are probably wondering what is wrong with this. I was also quick to ask the same question. It seems logical that we would want to go after people plotting against our government, right? Besides the $1,000,000,000 + (yes, nine zeros) price tag, let me elaborate on a few things that I think are wrong with this bill.

The first of which is the bill’s definition of ideologically based violence as the “use of force or violence”. What is force? Dictionary.com has many definitions of force including but not limited to “power to influence, power to convince, and any body of persons combined for joint actions.” By these definitions of force, you could argue that our rights to influence our elected representatives through protest would be targeted by this bill. Or even to contact them via phone, email or letter for that matter as this would absolutely be an attempt to influence or convince them. And this is just the political portion. It also focuses scrutiny on religious and social causes which one might want to actively participate in. In my opinion, this alone is enough to scrap this bill.

Second is the targeting of those with an “extreme belief system”. Who will define what an extreme belief system is? God forbid, bureaucrats in Washington define what is extreme, else all of us trying to live a debt free life void of greed and corruption are deemed extreme. Or would it be Hollywood? Now all of us who believe in the second amendment, traditional marriage and the right of an unborn child to live are considered extreme. Or better yet, would it be someone who thinks exactly the way I do? While I may choose to live a conservative lifestyle, I have no desire to force my beliefs on others.

This brings me to my last point, the second amendment. I do not and would never advocate violence as a means to accomplish one’s goals. However, I hardly believe that Madison had non-violence in mind when writing this part of our Bill of Rights. There is little doubt that this amendment was intended to give citizens a right to defend our nation and keep our government honest by means of a militia.

To be fair, HR 1955 also states that “Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.” I am not an attorney, but this statement alone nullifies the entire bill.

This bill has been sent to the Senate as S. 1959 and will likely be up for debate soon. I would hope that all twelve readers I have will read this bill and think not only about how it would affect them now, but how in time, in someone else’s hands will affect them in the future. I obviously disagree with the necessity of this bill and I have expressed this to my Senator. If you agree with me, I would encourage you to do the same while you still have the right.