13 nov. 2008

About Jane Harman in an Obama Administration

by Linda Milazzo

Pointer’s opinion leads to another conclusion at the end of this article.

The idea that the author of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act will work with Obama is a scary one.

According to the local Los Angeles newspaper, The Daily Breeze, California Congresswoman, Jane Harman, a blue dog conservative Democrat, is up for a high-level intelligence position in the Obama administration. The positions being considered are CIA Director, Director of National Intelligence, and Secretary of Homeland Security. If this speculation becomes fact, and Harman is appointed overseer of the freedoms of the American people, the people's freedoms are in deep trouble. Conservative Democrat Harman consistently legislates against participatory democracy and against personal freedom.
The most egregious example of Harman's disregard for participatory democracy is HR 1955 -- the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" -- a frightening bill she slipped in the House for passage just over a year ago. HR 1955 is very anti-dissent, very anti-freedom and so McCarthy-like in its establishment of citizen review Commissions. Fortunately, its Senate clone, S 1959, has not yet come up for a vote. Unfortunately, Mrs. Harman was so covert when sneaking in "1955" that no citizens could lobby to stop it in the House.
Here is a passage from an article I wrote on "1955" which describes Jane Harman's assault on our freedoms::
"On October 23rd [2007], Congress voted to stifle Americans' right to dissent when it passed House Resolution 1955, the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," sponsored by California Congresswoman, Jane Harman. In sanctioning the ambiguous definitions for "homeland terrorism" contained in this bill, Congress equated American participatory democracy to American "homegrown terror." The First Amendment is under assault:

(1) COMMISSION -- The term 'Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.
(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.
(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.
(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE -- The term '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. Despite the ambiguity of the language in H.R. 1955, it still passed the House by an overwhelming 404 to 6 -- rammed through by Jane Harman, under the guise of deterring another American mass murderer like Timothy McVeigh."

There is ample proof Jane Harman intentionally slid this undemocratic legislation past her Congressional colleagues to conceal from them how extreme an assault on freedom it would be. According to her colleague, Henry Waxman, Harman's bill had been placed on the "suspension calendar for non-controversial bills." In other words, Mrs. Harman casually slipped in a bill that could declare anyone in America a terrorist based on the vaguest definitions and then she just asked everyone to sign on. Even activist-friendly Maxine Waters signed the bill before she ever read it.

Pointer reads in the quoted definitions of terrorism sustaining contrasts with activism or participatory democracy. The keyword is “violence”. In other words: violent activism is or can be a form of terrorism in the reading of this law and Pointer agrees with that.