H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

A disturbingly vague bill had been pushed through the House of Representatives. The summary of this bill is as follows.

4/19/2007--Introduced.

"Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).

Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to: (1) establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States; (2) establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States; and (3) conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

Prohibits the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent resident."


This all sounds vague and in line with other security measures we have seen put in place. However what is the definition of a "Homegrown Terrorist." How are these objectives to be achieved? And what rights will we constitution-abiding citizens have to endure for this security measure?

The opening line of the full text reads as follows:

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes.

Could this be any more vague than saying "and for other purposes."

The bill defines its various terms in Section 899A

`(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.

This could be interpreted to include pretty much anyone who pushes for change. Violent can be defined as a measure of intensity. It does not always have to include physical harm

`(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.

Is there some force acting within this country that I am unaware of? Who is this bill trying to protect? Is this an attempt to protect the people from each other or the government from the people?

`(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.

Use and threatened use seems pretty obvious, but what exactly does planned use include? Does this include "what if scenarios," thinking out-loud, or even mentioning anything that someone somewhere construes as threatening? Could you be arrested under this law for thinking about committing a "crime?" Or maybe just thinking about protesting government policy? How far could it go? Vaguely defined laws gives room for extreme interpretations.

We must be vigilant of what bills are being past. Our rights are being eroded. Is this another example of this serious erosion of our constitutional rights? I am not here to tell you whether it is or not. I am here to make you question. Question everything because this is our country and these are our rights that are being pulled out from beneath us.

Ron Paul 2008

The election is well on it's way. I have been following things fairly closely. I am appalled at the lack of coverage that Ron Paul is receiving. I understand that many seem him as an extremist and in ways they are correct. However; we are in extreme times and we need big changes.

Recently CNBC ran an article titled "An open letter to Ron Paul supporters." In the article CNBC accused Paul supporters of hacking the online polls which resulted in their removal. There was apparently no evidence of "hacking" only poll numbers heavily in Paul's favor.

I don't delude my self in thinking that 75% of American would vote for Ron Paul if today was election day. However only a small fraction of American's even vote. I guess I have the bug. I believe that Ron Paul has a chance. I strongly believe that he could help get our nation back on track. In the end it still comes back to "we the people."

Ron Paul gets shunned at the debates. He receives very few questions. Many of the questions he does receive are loaded. Anyone following the debate should remember the incident where Giuliani's microphone mysteriously turned on allowing him to confront Paul over a question.

I am tired of the media networks telling us who the front runners are. In real life I haven't met a single Giuliani or Romney supporter. Somehow they sure find them somewhere and bus everyone of them to the debates. Ron Paul has been drawing large crowds of his own though.

He has a very dedicated online following. You can find videos posted all over youtube

On the democratic side I like Barack Obama. I like his energy and his passion. I think that he really wants to bring change. The problem I have with him is spending. I am not against all social programs, but we are a bankrupt nation waiting for the check to bounce. I don't think this is the time for social programs. We are already supporting most of the nation due to the enormous workforce employed by the US Government. Government employees make up more of the workforce than ever before.

Government needs to be cut back not grown and for this reason my vote is for Ron Paul

The government that grew too large

There was once a government that grew and grew. It controlled more and more aspects of its citizen's lives. Citizens paid a third of their income to this government. They didn't complain. They were used to it. The money went to a good cause right? Next their government took away civil liberties and said "it is for your own safety." The frightened public did not complain. Then the government printed identification cards to be carried at all times and used in all transactions. Once again the public was told that it was for their safety. Now the citizens were starting to get annoyed.

The news outlets soothed the public. They told them fantastic stories about what could happen to everyone if security was not the top priority. Of course all of this took money and so taxes would have to be increased again.
The economy of the country began to look weak, but once again news outlets swept in to ease any fears. Why should a fiat currency printed at will ever fail? Sure every other such system failed, but surely we are more advanced than the Roman Empire the people thought. The government grew to control most all aspects of life. Citizens had to receive government permission to get married, build a house, dig a well, own a dog, open a bank account, fly on an airplane, open a business, use public land, use a car, own a gun, hunt for food, and the list grew on and on.
The people bought large houses and fast cars to convince themselves that they were better off than previous generations. The inflating money supply made it easy to believe that prosperity was on the incline, but what was happening to real wealth.
The citizens continued to give up civil liberties. They forgot many principals that their nation was founded upon. Fair trials become unnecessary. The incentive to work hard disappeared. The population had become lulled to sleep. They became imprisoned in the worst way; They were imprisoned by the belief that this was liberty.

Inflation Stabilizing?

The headlines today are filled with titles like "No Sign of Inflation in November", "Inflation is a no show", and "US Inflation Drop Eases Pressure on Fed." Well according to to the governments CPI it may be true. The Price Inflation for a list of 100 items may in fact have remained stable at around 3.4%.

The problem is that price inflation is not the same as inflation. Prices fluctuate based on supply, demand, as well as inflation. The CPI is being held down by the decrease in energy prices over the past few months. But inflation is still raging. Even if it remained unchanged in terms of total money supply it would still be around 9 or 10% and that is a big if. Holding steady at these rates is unacceptable.

The government knows this is true. They know that the increase in money supply is the real cause of inflation. That is why the Federal Reserve no longer publishes M3 data. The M3 data was showing unprecedented rates of inflation and so they eliminated it. Making it extremely difficult for the public to see what is happening. They are trying very hard to maintain people confidence.

2.3 Trillion in to thin air...

In the midst of today's deficits and the quickly growing national debt we can not afford to misplace 2.3 trillion dollars. In fact I don't think we could ever afford it, but it is particularly troubling under our country's current financial situation.

Each year the pentagon fails to account for about 25% of their funding or in recent year 2.3 trillion dollars. That is 8,000 dollars per American. (CBS News Report)

I understand that there are top secret programs going on. I understand that some issues are quite sensitive, but 2.3 trillion is a lot of missing money. Accounting practices like this would get any business shut down........eventually.

If other government agencies function with this kind of fiscal mismanagement, then no wonder why we have so much national debt.

Thoughts about inflation...

I was reading through a college economics text-book this morning. I came across the topic of inflation. Not only was expanding money supply not discussed, but inflation itself was actually dismissed. In short it said that as long as inflation stays at a stable rate than wages will keep up and so it would be irrelevant. Now it is true that wages rise with inflation although they usually lag behind, however that doesn't make inflation itself irrelevant.

With inflation your money is constantly losing value. The second you earn a dollar it starts depreciating in your hand. This not only makes it hard to build wealth, but it also discourages you from doing so. If someone tells you that your dollar is going to be worth less tomorrow what do you do with it today? Do you hang on to it? Of course not you spend it. If you spend it on something that holds real value or at least appreciates along with inflation then you have a chance. The vast majority of us however don't spend our money on those things. So here is a system that is preventing wealth in two ways. First it eats away at the value of your savings and because of this it encourages you to not save money in the first place.

Here is another way to think about it. When more money is printed to pay the national deficit the value for those new dollars is stolen directly from the money you have saved. In this way you can think of it as an indirect tax.

OK that is all just different ways to think about the concept of inflation, but here is something to really think about. If your are "indirectly taxed" when money is printed by the Federal Reserve and loaned to the government to pay for the deficit, then why are we taxed again to pay for the interest on that loan? Do you see who is getting all of the benefit and who is footing the bill?

Inflation?

How much inflation are we really seeing today? Why should we trust the Governments's statistics? The Bureau of Labor and Statistics is the group in charge of publishing inflation, unemployement, and other such economic measurements. When it comes to employement they consider anyone who works more than 1 hour per week to be employed. They also don't count people who have given up searching for a job.

Back to inflation... They calculate inflation based on the CPI (Consumer Price Index) This takes the average prices of a small sample of goods that the average consumer purchases. They then track the percent change in this list. There are a number of flaws with this formula. Using this method they claim that from 2005 to 2006 inflation was 3.328%.

1.)It is a sample that is quite small compared to the overall number of goods sold.
2.)The sample is not random in any way. This is just asking for skewed results
3.)It is assuming that prices only change due to inflationary factors completely ignoring Supply and Demand.

You can't measure the price changes of every item purchased with USD's. CPI can be manipulated to give specific results by altering the items included. Inflation causes prices in general to rise. Not the other way around.

Well there is a better way. I think we all know that inflation is caused by the excessive printing of currency. This is only possible with unbacked fiat currency such as our USD. So why not measure the increase in money supply. Wouldn't that give a better indicator of inflation. The Federal Reserve publishes how much money they issue each year so it wouldn't be too hard to obtain that information.

If you use the M2 money supply which doesn't include large longterm investments then the inflation rate from 2005 to 2006 is 4.383%. This is not a whole lot higher than the CPI rate, but it is a compounding rate stealing the value of your dollars so every point counts.

This is where it gets scary. The M3 money supply is the broadest measure. It includes all of the currency out there from the most liquid to the least liquid. Some say that it includes too much debt to be an accurate measure, but I argue that credit dollars are just as real as fiat dollars. I mean they are both after all made up. Also you can spend credit dollars, you do so every time you use a credit card. OK here it goes. The inflation rate as calculated with the M3 money supply from 2005 to 2006 was 8.12%. Using this same method the current rate is closer to 11%. How can this be? Its actualy quite simple. The Federal Reserve is issueing new currency at a rate of about 10% per year.

There are many issues with this whole thing, but I will leave those for future posts. I guess the lesson is one that anyone who has studied statistics is already aware of, statistics can be manipulated to say whatever they want. It is important for us to use the numbers to come up with our own conclusions.

Side Notes: The Federal Reserve has declared that it will no longer publish the M3 money supply. They claim it is irrelavent, but that should be for us to decide.

Mike Shedlock makes a good arguement for the money supply definition of inlation at his blog.