I am a Homegrown Terrorist
Politics, General Idiocy, War December 20th. 2007, 5:31pmAnd do you know who grew me? The Bush Administration. That’s right. I am a homegrown terrorist, thanks to the for-profit entity currently occupying the executive branch of our government - BushCo.
But they won’t get blamed for their malfeasance… I will. They planted the seed, they plowed the field, and they made sure I (and others like me) had plenty of sustenance upon which to feed. And now, with the help of the other party that controls the government, the responsibility for cultivating this brand of terrorism will rest squarely on my shoulders.
I am a homegrown terrorist.

Doesn’t quite seem fair, does it?
In a previous post, in the process of describing the unprecedented power claimed by the current administration, I made a passing mention of the fact that we were only “one rubber-stamped, unread law away from instituting the thought police.” At the time, I must reluctantly admit, I was completely unaware of the existence of H.R. 1955, and the fact that it had almost unanimously passed the House vote a month earlier. This is a bill sponsored by a democrat, a California democrat no less, a member of the same party that has derided the USA Patriot Act for its encroachment on civil liberties and abuse of power. I know they didn’t read the Patriot Act, but what’s going to be their insufficient excuse for this piece of shit? You can’t try to excuse your vote for it if you wrote the damn thing!
But I digress…
I am a homegrown terrorist, as defined in the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007:
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.
I state here, unequivocally, that I am an individual born, raised, and operating primarily within the United States. I also state that I am purposefully and willingly threatening the United States government with the use of force and violence in and effort to intimidate them and coerce them in furtherance my political objective of protecting the Constitution of the United States.
In case I’m not being clear enough, let’s have just one example. If a government employee attempts to enter my house, procure my papers or effects, or in any way touch me or my property, whether it be owned or leased by me, without a warrant issued by a court or probable cause to do so, I am actively planning and threatening the use of force in defense of my political agenda that includes coercing and intimidating them into obeying the limits set by the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In case you haven’t noticed, I am now a homegrown terrorist.
Ever since BushCo, the republican controlled congress, and their democratic lap dogs admitted to the world that terrorism works, and that it had been a particularly effective tactic to use against them, by passing the Patriot Act without forethought, this has been a credible and consistent threat to the people of the United States. I have now, almost, committed a crime by merely threatening to stand up against their abuse. Luckily, this ridiculous excuse for a bill has yet to pass the Senate.
But if it does, this post can and would undoubtedly be used against me in a court of law. That is, if it weren’t already legal for the government to subsequently label me as an enemy combatant by default, and therefore deny my right to confront my accusers thanks to the already enacted, and equally despicable and unnecessary Military Commissions Act.
As if that weren’t enough, the bill goes on to make sure we know that thinking of using violence to resist the government is unacceptable by telling us where our motivation for forceful rebellion can, and cannot, come from.
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.
Some of you may or may not have heard of the Revolutionary War. By the definitions in this bill, each of those persons fighting for our side in that war would now be considered a terrorist by these standards. Look at them… sitting there all smug in there wigs and tight pants…

Fuckin’ Terrorists.
This means that if your government ever gets so overbearing and intrusive that you are sufficiently motivated to resist them, you are committing a crime by merely planning to do so with the use of force.
In the so-called ‘land of the free’, we are now outlawing the exact same kind of political dissension that is responsible for the very birth of this nation. We are outlawing the sole reason for including the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It was put there to ensure that the government was constantly and forever reminded that they were faced with an armed and vigilant group of homegrown terrorists ready to use violence and force to keep them in their place if necessary. The 2nd Amendment is, by itself, a threat to use force and violence meant to intimidate and coerce the United States government into following the political objectives of the people. And now this same government is promising you safety and order and the only thing they are demanding in return with this bill is your silent and obedient consent.
Where is the freedom in that? Where is America for that matter?
My name is Chris, I am a homegrown terrorist. Join me, won’t you?


December 21st, 2007 at 10:28 am
“use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence” was already illegal in the United States, as it is in most nations. And rightfully so.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:34 am
I agree all U.S. Citizens with a brain are terrorists.
Give me SOMA or give me DEATH.
December 21st, 2007 at 10:41 am
I’ve been a terrorist for years. i have petroleum jelly, and lawn fertilizers, gasoline, orange juice, and styrofoam. oh and i speed. i download music and games from servers without paying. and i also plan to resist the oncoming goverment intrusion. so do many people with 50 cal rifles.
December 21st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
While I agree that this is a piece of shit bill that the Senate should take behind the woodshed and put out of its misery, the notion that this somehow outlaws otherwise legal violent resistance against a tyrannous Federal government is utter hogwash. It was treasonous for the colonies to declare independence from the Crown. It would be similarly treasonous for anyone in today’s US to attempt something similar. (And we don’t need this law to make that so.) The point of the 2nd Amendment is not that it’s _legal_ to engage in armed resistance, but that it’s possible to do so.
So yes, there are absurdities here. It does smack of the “thought police” and it’s a scary step down that path, but you’re painting it in a somewhat extreme light.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Author’s Note:
I don’t think the problem is that it makes certain action illegal. The problem is that it makes ‘preemptive’ action against its own citizens by the government perfectly acceptable as long as it’s in the vein of trying to prevent this homegrown terrorism (i.e. making domestic spying perfectly acceptable, in a utilitarian sense).
In other words, the problem is not that they are pushing the line back on what I can do. The problem is that it further erases the line that can be drawn on their limits.
Yes, I have painted it in an extreme light, just as they have painted others in an extreme light to achieve their end in the so-called war on terror.
And it would not be treasonous for anyone in today’s United States to rebel against a government that was already committing treason itself by violating the Constitution. The Crown had no such document limiting its powers or restraining its reach over the people, and that made any action against them treasonous. Sure there are peaceful means of rebellion, but those are also disappearing at an alarming rate.
December 21st, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hrmmm… I’m a dyslexic computer scientist cum business guy, not a lawyer, but I’m having a hard time seeing where this bill would “erase the line drawn on their limits.” I could be missing something but it looks to me like it defines some terms (”Homegrown Terrorism,” for example) and then creates a pork-project-esque commission to study the problem and develop recommendations about what should be done. It also repeatedly mentions that whatever measures are recommended or implemented must respect the Constitutional rights of the People. In short, I don’t see anything in this bill that newly criminalizes any previously legal behavior. It may define “homegrown terrorism” in an unfortunate way, but it doesn’t seem to go so far as to make that any more criminal than it was before the bill was authored. Again, though, I may be missing something.
On the “treason” front, while I agree in principle that defense of the Constitution is the ultimate act of patriotism, the civil rights situation in this country would have to erode pretty badly from its present state before you’d get the kind of consensus that was required for sanctioned representatives of the States to concur that violent rebellion was in order. That was the standard set by the Revolution. A couple of guys in a camp in Idaho feeling put-upon by The Gubment cannot unilaterally conclude that they’re going to rebel and have that be OK. Their proper course of action is within the court system. If and when the courts become a complete puppet arm of the executive such that the Constitution is being ignored, THEN you might see the kind of broad consensus that the Constitution needed defending that would justify armed resistance. And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all if it comes to that.
December 21st, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Let’s take the wiretapping example (one of many)… One of the central justifications that the government offered in an attempt to appease the people was that warrantless wiretapping was not being used to listen in on calls wholly within the United States. Lo and behold, we eventually find out that when people were being tapped, more often than not, the question was not ‘why are they talking to a suspected terrorist?’ The question was ‘are they talking to a suspected terrorist at all?’ or ‘are they even talking to someone outside the United States?’ That was illegal.
This bill now erases that line (even though it was already being ignored). It will no longer matter if the calls are within the United States, so long as law enforcement says, unilaterally, that it is trying to prevent homegrown terrorism.
Or take the example that I used in the post. If I assert my 4th amendment rights and resist, with force, an unreasonable search of my home, then I am no longer merely “obstructing justice” (or whatever they would choose to call it). I am now a terrorist, because I have used force to coerce the government in furtherance of a political, albeit lawful, objective. And what is “force”? In a time when a 30 year old man can be forced to register as a sex offender for grabbing a younger girl by the arm in a non-sexual and non-threatening way, I don’t think I’m out of line in warning that the definition of force in this situation will be as broad as they want it to be. If I push my door closed and catch their hand in the process, is that force? If we are as afraid of homegrown terrorists as we are of sex offenders, then the answer is undoubtedly ‘yes’.
I agree on the treason front. If it helps, consider this an attempt to avoid stepping any further down that slippery slope.
Maybe I’m being paranoid, but like I said, they grew me.
January 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
[…] presents I am a Homegrown Terrorist posted at Gratuitous Common […]
January 3rd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
By all means, if a government official comes into my residence and attempts to violate my 1st or 4th amendment rights, i will defend myself.
Slap that terrorist label all over me.