Free Government
Democracy In Your Hands.

sign up | log in
  • Home
  • Legislation
  • Polls
  • Forums
  • Groups
  • People

FreeGovernment.org is in active development. We consider your feedback critical to our success, so please share your suggestions through this form.

All polls Poll forum Show related bill
Do you support FG Bill #5?
Your vote is set to adviser
Poll Statistics
Today All Users Verified Voters
Yes 18.9% n/a
No 81.1% n/a
All 37 0
Topics Being Discussed

No topics for this poll.

Description & Updates
H.R.1955 Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007
Statistics in Real-Time
Timeline of Poll Results
Poll Comments
symetrist, Aug 27, 2008 12:36pm

”`(c) Auditing Mechanism- The Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Officer of the Department of Homeland Security shall develop and implement an auditing mechanism to ensure that compliance with this subtitle does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of any racial, ethnic, or religious group, and shall include the results of audits under such mechanism in its annual report to Congress required under section 705.’.”

Let DHS govern itself? That’s insane.

christopherritter, Dayton, OH Aug 05, 2008 08:06pm

Please stop the War on Terror from spreading to America by voting No on the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

sophist, Jul 31, 2008 11:31am

Hm… more government… interesting. Doesn’t the FBI already do this? Does this represent restructuring of the current roles (much like establishing DNI ) from the current National Counterterrorism Center to something under DHS ? I like the idea of a Civil Rights Advocate within the DHS (as I’m totally in favor of a Privacy Advocate in the Attourney General’s office) but this seems like duplication of efforts in general. Anyone have more/better information on how this would affect the current Executive Branch organization?

nosetu, Maine Jul 26, 2008 04:39pm

Somewhere I read that when a bird lives in a cage too long, the door to its cage opening will not cause it to fly out. I believe people in general have become too complacent everywhere. They need change but like the bird stay behind the bars that their political structure has placed them in because that is all they have ever known.

People demanding transparency from those they have entrusted politically and wanting to be involved in the decision making process is not something for a government to fear. After all are not the people the ones who make their government?

cxxguy, Jul 26, 2008 06:09am

People should not fear their government. Governments should fear the people.

parmenides79, Atlanta, GA Jul 15, 2008 04:32pm

I can think of plenty of legitimate cases in which people should have the ability. along with the responsibility, to promote such “homegrown” terrorism. This bill just ensures that the government could silence those individuals.

parmenides79, Atlanta, GA Jul 15, 2008 04:32pm

I can think of plenty of legitimate cases in which people should have the ability. along with the responsibility, to promote such “homegrown” terrorism. This bill just ensures that the government could silence those individuals.

bob921, East Lansing, MI Jul 14, 2008 02:33pm

I oppose the “War On Terror”, and I feel that this is another front in that concept that will isolate us and fear our government and each other.

abatie, Jul 13, 2008 02:17pm

It seems to me that studying the motivations of your enemy is a reasonable thing. It specifically states, in effect emphasizing, that violating civil rights is not allowed. If “they”’re going to violate that, they don’t need this commission to do it. If I were going to object to it on any grounds, it would be that it shouldn’t need a separate commission: it’s something the fbi and state department should already have done and be doing on an ongoing basis. Indeed, it’s clear they have done, albeit often ignoring the civil rights part. But perhaps having a commission generating reports might get some slight time on the news where people might get a bit of a wake up call on how our attitudes piss people off.

t_buckman, Jul 12, 2008 04:40am

This is a move to keep those in power in power. Any group that is big enough to oppose them and make an impact can be attacked with claims that they were planning to use violence.

« Previous 1 2 Next »
Displaying entries 1 - 10 of 14 in total

Updates

New Users

gwillen
Person
djdesjardins
Person
Republican Party
powellc
Person
Other
ME
jfinkels
Person
zstarmac
Person
Democratic Party
Eugene, OR
bdanaher17
Person
Libertarian Party
Blue Springs, MO

Support FreeGovernment.org

Recent Posts

brokenladder posted on Electoral Reform Party
Here's an idea i have for a "unity" type of party. A "metaparty" essentially. Our goal is to serve as an alternative to the plurality-based two party system, enabling the current alternative parties, as well as new ones, to function as "sub-parties". Our...
nosetu commented on Do you think that third party candidates should ever, for any reason, be allowed to debate major candidates?
Freedom is only an illusion. Unless we get involved in the "core" of our government, our government will only superficially give us the freedoms it feels it needs to keep us docile. Even if the government needed to stage numerous parties in debates to feed our thirst they would still...
bdanaher17 commented on Do you think that third party candidates should ever, for any reason, be allowed to debate major candidates?
Why not! Freedom is Popular.

Recent Polls

"Do you think that third party candidates should ever, for any reason, be allowed to debate major candidates?"
4 votes
100.0% Yes 0.0% No
"Should Scientology be disbanded?"
12 votes
41.7% Yes 58.3% No
"Churches should be free to decide, without government interference, which couples they will or will not marry."
15 votes
93.3% Yes 6.7% No
© 2008 FreeGovernment.org
About Us | Contact Us | Blog
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Source Code
Give us feedback!