“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.

On occasion, while driving home from work, I like to listen to Michael Savage. While I can only handle him in small doses, I find that I agree with him on ALMOST everything. It is his presentation style which albeit sometimes entertaining, makes me only able to handle him for 15-20 minutes at a time. One of his claims which he has written a top ten best selling book on is that “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. I have never read this book and have often just chuckled when he says this. I can imagine that those on the left would claim the same of those on the right. This makes sense as we all think differently and just can not fathom why the other side thinks the way that they do. I would hypothesize that the right thinks logically, while the left tends to think emotionally, hence sometimes not really thinking at all. Please allow me to make a case for the latter by discussing some recent events that have taken place in my adopted second country of Venezuela.

I don’t think anyone would argue with me that Danny Glover and Sean Penn are devout liberals. Both of these men have recently taken it upon themselves to visit with the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Shortly after his most recent highly publicized visit, Glover, now a “close friend” of Chavez accepted $18 million from him to Produce a movie about “Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the epic 1791 slave uprising that helped make Haiti the first black nation to throw off the yoke of European colonialism”. While a slave uprising is certainly a great and noble story, I would hardly reference Haiti as a political success story. In any case, whenever people make high profile relationships or take up causes with great fanfare and media attention, you should always take a close look at the money trail. This is certainly no exception.

It appears as though Sean Penn was intrigued by this outpouring of generosity from this oil-rich president and wanted to get in on the action when he decided to visit Chavez himself. He claims that he went because Pat Robertson said that Chavez should be assassinated, and anything that Pat Robertson says, he should think opposite. This is the first item that supports my hypothesis above. If Sean’s statement is true, someone should start a campaign to encourage Pat Robertson to hold a press conference urging Mr. Penn to make more movies and to make his profound opinions even more public.

The point I want to make here is that these guys are both actors. And even though actors don’t really create anything and are just imitators of others, I believe they are considered artists. While I would not consider myself an artist by any means, I know that art is based on self expression and can not thrive when it is limited. Despite the fact that Chavez has clamped down on his opposition’s freedom of speech by having journalists fired or imprisoned and closing down television stations that oppose him, these guys continue to praise him. Granted, arguments could be made about whether RCTV’s actions warranted the non renewal of their license, but shouldn’t liberals generally want to err on the side of free speech? Besides, Chavez is no stranger to coup attempts.

The latest is a story of a fellow artist who is being silenced by this “fascinating guy”. Grammy Award winning Spanish singer, Alejandro Sanz has been banned from performing in the state run Poliedro because in 2004, he said, ”I don’t like your president. I don’t like those from other places either.” This was hardly advocating a coup or assassination attempt, but Sanz has still been forbidden to perform. Could you imagine if Bush had forbidden all of his detractors from performing in publicly operated venues? Right or left, I don’t think anyone would argue that this is the epitome of stifled freedom of speech.

These are just a couple of examples of suppression of speech that have made international headlines. Having family and friends in Venezuela, I hear many stories about the apprehension of people to express their opposition to Chavez’s policies in fear of the consequences. Corruption is still rampant and the blessings are many for the Chavistas. Danny Glover can surely attest to this.

The Alejandro Sanz story is still relatively new, but I would hope that Sean and Danny would stand up for this fellow artist and denounce the actions of their friend. However with millions of dollars at stake, I see this as highly unlikely. I can not conclude this for all liberals, but I have certainly concluded that in the case of Sean Penn and Danny Glover that at best, they suffer from a lack of common sense and at worst as Mr. Savage would say they may indeed suffer from a mental disorder.