THE BORDER REPORT

Thank you Tucson Democrats Gabrielle Giffords and Raul Grijalva for lacing up the jackboots and taking a healthy swipe at my First Amendment rights. Thank you media, too, for virtually ignoring the passage of this bill. You know, if this were Mexico, I'd be automatically suspicious, wondering if the media hadn't been paid off to ensure that the passing of a nasty little bill was given positive coverage. But of course, those things don't happen in the United States. Well, welcome to H.R. 1955, the homegrown terrorism bill passed under suspension of the rules to curb debate on Oct. 23. 404 to 6. It's called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 to be precise. As I understand this bill, the Feds would seek state help to weed out radical dissidents in hopes of preventing a terror attack like the Oklahoma City bombings. The terror argument again. And again. And again. Here is the some of the wording from the findings that led to the bill's easy – and quiet – passage: The Internet has aided in facilitating 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. The potential rise of self radicalized, unaffiliated terrorists domestically cannot be easily prevented through traditional Federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts, and requires the incorporation of State and local solutions. A cursory search of the Google news archives finds one mainstream media reference from The Associated Press, titled House Votes on Fertilizer Registry. H.R. 1955 falls somewhere around the last five grafs of the story. You can't blame Pres. George Bush for this one, this idea was concocted by dangerous whackjobs in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Sponsored in fact, by a Republican and Democrat. Here's California Democrat Jane Harman, (one sponsor) talking to AP: "Free speech, espousing even very radical beliefs, is protected by our Constitution — but violent behavior is not. Our plan must be to intervene before a person crosses that line separating radical views from violent behavior." The bill has yet to be voted on by the Senate but here are your Arizona delegation Aye voters: Republicans: Rick Renzi Trent Franks John Shadegg Democrats: Gabrielle Giffords Raul Grijalva Edward Pastor Harry Mitchell A very special thanks to Republican Jeff Flake who opposed the bill. Now, I want to know how they'd go about enforcing this legislation, assuming it passes the Senate and the president's approval. Does this mean that the Feds could have intervened in the Phoenix New Times fiasco last week on behalf of the Maricopa County Attorney's Office? Does this mean federal intervention if I were arrested at an anti-war protest? Now, any time there's a question of First Amendment rights, thankfully, most debate ends up being rational. I can rant and rave on this Web site all I want but I can't make threats against somebody and I can't shout fire in a crowded theatre. But I do get suspicious when the nuances of terrorism are entered into legislation. The sponsors of H.R. 1955 brought up the Oklahoma City bombings as their premise for the passage of the bill. That was 12 years ago. So why is Congress now taking up the fight? Furthermore, I don't recall the terrorists, Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols taking the public stage before they laid out the Alfred P. Murrah Building. I do notice however, that neither Grijalva nor Giffords made any mention of their aye votes in this bill to local media. Thanks guys, remember that November does come about every few years.

-- Michael Marizco