Tell Congress not to pass the FISA Amendments Act - Sign this petition

Tell Congress not to pass the FISA Amendments Act - Sign this petition:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-fisa-amendments-act

FISA Amendments Act of 2007: Physical Searches Without a Warrant

FISA Amendments Act of 2007: Physical Searches Without a Warrant

If you listened to what few news reports there are about the FISA Amendments Act of 2007, you might be forgiven for thinking that the bill concerns electronic surveillance.

You’d be wrong.
Source:http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/23/fisa-amendments-act-of-2007-physical-searches-without-a-warrant/

To boil it down to a one-sentence conclusion, Section 107 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 enables the Attorney General to order physical searches of anyone’s property or possessions without a warrant or accountability, at the whim of the Attorney General. That’s a frightening prospect.
Source:http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/23/fisa-amendments-act-of-2007-physical-searches-without-a-warrant/

Petition asking Congress not to pass this:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-fisa-amendments-act

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Bill number: H.R. 1955

Title: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act was introduced by Representative Jane Harman, on April 19, 2007. It passed the House of Representatives on October 23, 2007. The bill has not passed the Senate yet.

The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act establishes a "National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Ideologically Based Violence", and creates a "Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States"

The bill is not as concerning to me as bills such as the Miliary Commissions Act or the Protect America Act of 2007, however, many people disagree.

Congresswoman Jane Harman has introduced legislation--H.R. 1955: "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism"--that is expected to be referred to the House Rules Committee for assignment of floor time for debate by the House. This is a bill that is unneeded, unwise, and unfortunately will pass and be signed into law as it purports to be part of the response to 9/11 and the global war on terror.

At base, Harman's proposal seems to be a direct attack on First Amendment rights. No where is this more clear than in the third introductory paragraph (the "where as" section) that provides the context for the action desired. Specifically, this legislation aims at the unregulated nature of the Internet:

"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

Moreover, Harman is telling the American public, citizens and permanent residents, that they are too dumb to recognize hate speech, demonizing rhetoric, and propaganda, and are so morally immature that they are not capable of knowing when to "blow off" terrorists and their messages designed to incite large scale insurrection

One also gets the impression that Harman believes that terrorist criminality has become so wide and the number of people who mentally entertain thoughts of non-compliance with authority so numerous that the country is about to teeter into chaos
(Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/smith10252007.html)




The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed HR 1955 titled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. This bill is one of the most blatant attacks against the Constitution yet and actually defines thought crimes as homegrown terrorism. If passed into law, it will also establish a commission and a Center of Excellence to study and defeat so called thought criminals. Unlike previous anti-terror legislation, this bill specifically targets the civilian population of the United States and uses vague language to define homegrown terrorism. Amazingly, 404 of our elected representatives from both the Democrat and Republican parties voted in favor of this bill. There is little doubt that this bill is specifically targeting the growing patriot community that is demanding the restoration of the Constitution.

First let’s take a look at the definitions of violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism as defined in Section 899A of the bill.

The definition of violent radicalization uses vague language to define this term of promoting any belief system that the government considers to be an extremist agenda. Since the bill doesn’t specifically define what an extremist belief system is, it is entirely up to the interpretation of the government. Considering how much the government has done to destroy the Constitution they could even define Ron Paul supporters as promoting an extremist belief system. Literally, the government according to this definition can define whatever they want as an extremist belief system. Essentially they have defined violent radicalization as thought crime. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means 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.

The definition of homegrown terrorism uses equally vague language to further define thought crime. The bill includes the planned use of force or violence as homegrown terrorism which could be interpreted as thinking about using force or violence. Not only that but the definition is so vaguely defined, that petty crimes could even fall into the category of homegrown terrorism. The definition as defined in the bill is shown below.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means 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.
(Source: http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=4682)