Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Kiss your First Amendment rights goodbye.

I first heard the alarm on this under-the-radar bill that has already flown through the House and is sitting in the Senate as S.1959 by Kate Chase over at ATD.

Mike Adams at NewsTarget.com has a comprehensively terrifying look at the bill and all the contact information you could need. Here's a clip:

The bill states:

‘...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...

Note that this means the "planned use of force to promote a political or social belief" would be considered an act of terrorism. This all hinges on the definition of "force," of course. Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:

• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency

You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.

If this bill passes, any blogger - especially me - who has and will continue to rant against the current administration could be taken off to jail for voicing my opposition. Voice yours before it's too late.

Put on your boots, and get busy kickin' or get busy shakin'.