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

To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes. view all titles (4)

All Bill Titles

  • Short: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as reported to house.
  • Short: Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as introduced.
  • Short: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 as passed house.
  • Official: To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes. as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

Displaying 1-30 of 45 total comments.

  • Patriot 01/14/2008 10:34pm

    I OPPOSE introduction of HR-1955 into law. It’s a heinous usurpation of our Constitution and would eviscerate our Bill of Rights. This is America and its elected government representatives should uphold the rights of its citizens; not the wishes of a self appointed dictator. We the People DEMAND that our elected representatives in the Senate take a stand for America and vote “NO” on HR-1955 and abolish any new un-Constitutional legislation. We should NOT be made to fear our government. Passage of this bill would alienate every freedom loving citizen in the United States and could possibly lead to a national crises. Please listen to your conscience and vote “NO”! on HR-1955. Don’t give up.
    We the People are counting on you to keep America free.

  • Comm_reply
    jfbyers 02/17/2009 7:34am

    Thomas Jefferson – For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security.

  • tduvally 01/15/2008 4:47am

    Can anyone point out where in this bill new powers are granted? As far as I can tell from actually reading this proposed law (yet to pass the Senate) all that is created is a commission that has the mandate to study and report concerning homegrown terrorism. It has 18 months, and will dissolve with 30 days delivering the report. What powers does this bill grant beyond that? Am I missing something in the text?

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 01/16/2008 2:27pm

    I also read the entire bill….and I was sure to check all language. Of course you should look into the 899c.d act or something like that that does not apply to this certain bill. That just infuriated me even more. This entire bill is put in their language. Oh and that 899c.d thing basically says that all groups commission etc… must be terminated when no longer of use. So what confused me was if this is supposed to terminate within a set amount of days why would they include such an act to not apply?

  • Comm_reply
    tmnordlund 09/29/2009 10:50am

    Check out this factsheet from the Center for Constitutional Rights: http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-violent-radicalization-and-homegrown-terrorism-prevention-act-2007.

  • RedWriter 01/15/2008 4:49am

    This is a serious attack on all Americans that should be involved in the political process in our Local, State and Federal governments. While I do not disgree with everything happening in our Nation, I do want the chance to voice my opinions publicaly when it is nessesary, if this piece of filth passes that ability becomes limited because I could be arrested as a terrorist because I would be LABELED and then silenced. This is wrong in every sense of the word.

  • zachtobias 01/15/2008 7:54am

    This is nothing more then a committee designation for looking into home grown terrorism. It doesn’t grant the government any new powers over American Citizens. It also has a provision to investigate the actions of foreign governments towards terrorism and make sure the government does overstep the Bill of Rights.

  • BJHarris 01/15/2008 9:06am

    In response to the comments about the bill only providing for a committee: Increment by increment is how our freedoms are lost. First it’s just a committee. Then the committee returns results that show homegrown terrorism to be a problem in order to survive, and a task force is put into place. The task force then depends upon homegrown terrorism to survive and thus exacerbates the problem, and before you know it there have been terror scares, attacks, etc and freedoms are eradicated in order to keep us all safe.

    Sure sounds extreme but not if you look at what has happened since November 2000.

  • Comm_reply
    alex 01/15/2008 8:28pm

    Slippery slope. I agree with zachtobias, I don’t see a significant threat here. I oppose it, however, because I don’t see a need for a committee to analyze something that our existing law enforcement / criminal justice system can and already has the power to handle. Waste of time and money. But I don’t see it as a threat to civil liberties.

  • Comm_reply
    dan_roberts 12/02/2008 7:23am

    I have no problem with this bill. You can find some issue in any of the anti-terrorism legislation that could be used by bad actors in the government to step on civil liberties, and it is possible that someone might be damaged, but the overall purpose of these types of legislation is to protect us against bad people not against ourselves.

  • blueboyspaz 01/15/2008 10:35am

    I think the big thing I have against the bill is it doesn’t clarify what exactly “terrorism” is. This is how we got screwed in the Patriot Act. But I have to say that if this bill could be reworded to focus on organizations, corporations, or other established entites whose mission whether directly or indirectly stated, is to “terrorize” American citizens with violence then I would be more in support of it. This would include White Seperatist, Pro-life organizations that have been linked to violence, as well as some local police. Though I’m pretty sure that isn’t what they were thinking when writing it up. Though I would think it would be unconstitutional, both against the first and second amendment. If you equate guns to violence and as tools of “terorism”, whether justified of not, it seems like it would cause major conflicts with the NRA.

  • Cajunpatriot 01/15/2008 12:41pm

    I fear H.B.1955 will just be another brick in the wall of the Police State the DC Regime has been steadily building since the end of the Cold War. Right now it is supposedly directed at Islamic extremists; but under the next administration it might be gun owners, anti-tax protesters, pro-lifers, homeschoolers, or folks with traditional views on marriage and gender. This is a flood gate that should not be opened.

  • thebarge 01/16/2008 9:25am

    Although I do not subscribe to the concept that this bill will imping on our rights, I do oppose this on two grounds.

    1. It is unnecessary and a waste of time and money. It will likely conclude that there are domestic terrorists (as we all know there are a few).

    2. It strikes me as I read this like the House Committee on Un-American activities and Former Senator Joseph McCarthy’s antics.


    I see the risks pointed out by Cajunpatriot as real possibilities. We need to keep the perspective that the office holders of today are possibly going to change every two years or so. The next person may not have the same intentions and may use this committee for different purposes.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Anonymous 01/18/2008 3:52am

    Homegrown Terrorism. Somebody call Congress…

    “The process of [military] transformation…is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
    -PNAC September 2000


    “And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” -PNAC September 2000



  • blueboyspaz 01/18/2008 9:16am

    Here’s a reply from my representative, Tammy Baldwin, who is one of the most progressive representatives but still voted for this bill.

    “Additionally, this bill 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 residents. The bill also states that individuals should not be targeted based solely on race, ethnicity, or religion. While I understand concerns that have been raised about the possible exploitation of this bill, it was these inclusion of these provisions that prompted me to vote for this measures when it passed the House by a vote of 404 to 6 on October 23, 2007. The bill is now pending in the U.S. Senate.”

    That seems like a narrow exception of groups from being persecuted. Though since only recently George Bush stated that Hmong are not terrorist, it is a good based line.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 01/19/2008 6:28pm

    Ask Tammy Baldwin if someone who says this is protected from prosecution… “And advanced forms of biological warfare that can ‘target’ specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” -PNAC September 2000 http://www.newamericancentury.orgRebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

  • Anonymous 01/19/2008 12:38pm

    As a lawyer of 31 years, I see the bill as immediately dangerous and also ominous for future legislation. First, the “study group” is given subpoena and contempt powers, and its subhject is so broad that it can literally make any American answer any question on any subject, at any length, or face jail. Second, it incorporates a definitional framework based on neocon newspeak which is frightening. Examples: “intimidation” can mean ANY change of another’s behavior. “A segment of the civilian population” means any ONE person. And, a “social belief” is basically any belief you hold, about ANYTHING. Literally, under this act, such things as advocating the imprisonment of rapists is a “terrorist” act. Now, if this bill passes, here’s the scary part — all they have to do next is pass a new law that says, “Homegrown terrorism AS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE LAW is declared a crime.” And further, “All existing laws pertaining to terrorism are hereby made applicable to homegrown terrorism AS DEFINED IN THE EXISTING LAW.” Who in Congress has the guts to vote “no” on a bill like that? And presto, you will have the entire FISA, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Presidential Directive 20 structure — so carefully and clandestinely erected to this point — made applicable to just about every act of advocacy by every citizen. THIS is how freedom dies.

  • Anonymous 01/21/2008 6:24am

    I object this bill because the big security is the loss of freedom. Because the problems with this bill its like the government is figuring that we are terrorist. We are scared of the terrorist that we want security Ben Franklin said that if you limit freedom for temporary security deserve neither freedom or security

  • Anonymous 01/23/2008 9:37am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    It should be clear that the gravest threat to this country’s security and its constitution comes from the bush administration itself.

    Check out Sibel Edmond’s (the FBI whistleblower) story at
    if you don’t believe me, then see her gallery of rogues and the french documentary about her at justacitizen.org

  • Anonymous 01/23/2008 9:53am
    Link Reply
    + -2

    Also see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3216737.ece

    It appears that the Valerie Plame outing served to shut down the CIA’s investigation of the neo-traitor’s nuclear weapons trafficking network that Edmonds was eavesdropping on.

  • Moderated Comment

  • Anonymous 01/24/2008 8:53pm

    When you give up Libery for the promise of Security, you get neither – Ben Franklin

  • Anonymous 02/04/2008 3:46pm

    I would support this bill if it attacked real terrorism. Lets define the bloated ceo and business executive salaries as anti-American and therefore terrorism. Also, lets define the U.S. governments failure to contol our borders and to stop illegal immigration(invasion) as anti-American and therefore terrorism. Lets really help Americans.

  • Anonymous 02/06/2008 4:12pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    How could you vote to pass bill H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007? Do you think Americans’ should not have their civil liberties?! Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?! I will do everything make it known that we have a state reps that are willing to take away our rights, because of a potential problem! That because some people are potential threats that you believe the innocent must suffer as well! I love my freedoms to think what I want, and I am going to make sure everyone knows that you said yes to a bill that says I can no longer express them if they go against the government for fear of being a homegrown terrorist! I hope you can live with your decision on helping with the destruction of this once great country!

  • Anonymous 02/13/2008 5:20pm
    I found this information on a government web site: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/86xx/doc8633/hr1955.pdf It has a nice overview of what Members of Congress have voted on, and what the Senate will soon vote on. It says,

    " H.R. 1955 would direct DHS to establish a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. The center
    would coordinate research on terrorism with other academic institutions. The bill also would establish 10-member commission to examine the causes of terrorist acts committed by persons raised or living in the United States. The commission would report its findings and recommendations to the Congress over the next two years. Finally, the bill would require DHS to prepare reports on certain issues relating to terrorism in the United States. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts and based on information provided by DHS on the cost of conducting similar activities, CBO estimates that the agency would spend about $22 million over the 2008-2012 period to implement the legislation. Of that amount, $4 million a year would be used to support the new Center of Excellence. The remaining amount would be spent over the next two years for studies and reports required by the bill, primarily those to be carried out by the new commission."

    Sounds pretty innocuous. If you disagree, let your Senators and congressmen know about it. At this point, we still have a representative government. Work It.

  • heftyjake 02/15/2008 11:20am

    We need to be taking ground, not giving ground on this issue. This feels like the kiss on the cheek you get after being anal raped in prison. In the grand sceme of things possibly unimportant, but let this be the straw that breaks our back. I for one am ready to get back the civil liberties that were taken from us and to give any more ground at all is ludicrous. It’s local police, port patrol, air port security and similar groups that gaurd americans. NOT salivating voyeurs.

  • ngscents 02/17/2008 4:10pm

    Obviously, our elected officials have forgotten that our constitution provides us with freedom. The government staying out of our lives as much as possible is the best possible freedom that I know. These policians don’t care what the people think anymore. Vote this one down!

  • Anonymous 02/19/2008 7:35pm

    In truth, the Constitution provides the People with nothing; it was written as a contract for OFFICEHOLDERS to be bound by, not the People.

    Some cites in support:

    “But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it.” – Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520

    If you rely on a piece of paper to “give” you your rights, another piece of paper will take them away from you. This is the mystical foundation of the law; that some believe that because it IS “the law,” therefore it is just and must be obeyed unthinkingly, without question.

    Jefferson disagreed, when he defined Liberty thusly:

    “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
    — Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President

    Here’s a several more cites on-point to the fact that the CONstitution is binding on those who swear oaths to it, not the People themselves:

    “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16th American Jurisprudence 2nd edition, Sec 177, late 2nd, Sec 256.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” – Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). See also Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491 and Norton vs. Shelby County, 118 US 425 p. 442

    “No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words ‘no’ and ‘not’ employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.”
    — Rev. Edmund A. Opitz(1914-2006) American minister, author

    “The inherent right in the people to reform their government, I do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws without overturning the government.”
    — Daniel Webster(1782-1852) US Senator

    “The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it’s invalid on its face.”
    — Justice Potter Stewart(1915-1985), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
    Source: Walker v. Birmingham, 1967

    “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” —Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

    “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”
    — Samuel Adams

    “Were the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed
    with a divine purpose and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all?
    — Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

    “A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”

    — Benjamin Franklin

    “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.”
    — John Adams
    (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President

    “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” —Alexander Hamilton

    “I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and courts. These are false hopes, believe me; these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no Constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

    — Judge Learned Hand, Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. 1872-1961

    “The world is different now…And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forefathers fought are still at issues around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” — President John F. Kennedy 1961 Inaugural

    “Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals — that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government — that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.”
    — Ayn Rand(1905-1982) Author

    On-topic, I agree with the earlier post by the lawyer of 21 years, that the subpoena power of this Commission has a very good chance of making it the modern-day equivalent of the MacCarthy Commie witch-hunting cabal.

    With goodwill to all the People-


  • thepoorpeoples 02/19/2008 7:41pm
    Link Reply
    + -2


Vote on This Bill

9% Users Support Bill

33 in favor / 347 opposed

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments