It seems my week this week isn't any less busy than last week......My poor little Duncan has an ear infection and we brought him to the vet yesterday. He's on meds and should be better soon.  Today we're heading to Tarpon Springs to visit our son.  But.......I did get an email reply from my Rep and wanted to share it here with you.

Dear Terri:

Thank you for contacting my office. I understand you had some problems receiving a response from me, and I am sorry for that. According to my records, you received an email response December 1, 2007, the day after you emailed me. Therefore, I am sending you an email and "snail mail" response to ensure you receive this one. As my staff explained, regardless of where I stand on the issues, I want to ensure that every constituent is responded to and feels they have open access to my office. As an elected official, that is my number one priority.

As know, Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. This legislation amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism, which is defined as terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States.

I respect your concerns, but I disagree that this bill would deter your right to freedom of speech. "Violent Radicalization" is specifically defined in the bill as "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." "Homegrown terrorism" is specifically defined as "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." The bill further defines "ideologically based violence" as "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." Clearly, the bill is limited to those who mean physically and violently to harm our nation and its citizens, and to those who express their extremist beliefs, not those who simply disagree with their elected leaders.

While our most publicized threats are from the Middle East, a domestic attack is always a viable risk. Americans must be keenly aware of what is going on inside our borders. Anyone who doubts this must have already forgotten about Timothy McVeigh killing 168 people in the Oklahoma City Bombing. Until the attacks of 9/11, it was the deadliest act of terrorism on U.S. soil.

Since the Oklahoma City bombing, law enforcement authorities have foiled over 60 domestic terror plots. The attacks were prevented due to measures established by local and federal governments to increase security of high-priority targets and follow-up on hate groups within the United States.

As a Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, I know that these threats are real. While we must protect our borders, the government must also protect innocent civilians from domestic terrorists who seek to destroy our great nation. To do so, I voted in favor of H.R. 1955 and it passed the House on October 23, 2007, by a vote of 404 - 6. While you might disagree with my vote, a clear majority of my colleagues agreed with me that we must protect our country from threats both within and outside of our borders.

Again, I thank you for contacting me and look forward to hearing from you again.

Throughout my tenure in public service, I have always kept an open door and an open dialogue with my constituents. As Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and views with me. Accordingly, I encourage you to visit my Web site at http://brown-waite.house.gov to email me and find useful information about our 5th Congressional District.

It is my honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida's 5th Congressional District and my offices and staff are here to provide you with any assistance you may need.

Sincerely,

Ginny Brown-Waite
Member of Congress

Yes, I'm pleased that she responded back to me.  However, I don't agree with much of what she said here.  First of all, I have a question......Who is to define what "threatened use of force is?"  And I could be wrong, but couldn't a "threatened use of force" also be whatever somebody explains it to be?  Such as.....my freedom of speech? 

Also.....should this bill pass.....who will define "extremist" and will their definition be the same as mine?  Could I be considered an "extremist" because I have an Impeach07 icon on my sidebar?  Would I be suspected of being an extremist because I voice my opinion here with my words? 

Yes, I know she says "not those who simply disagree with their elected leaders."  Hmmm......#1, she might be telling me this, but perhaps the powers-that-be have a different view on those of us that dare to disagree and #2......the commission they plan to set up?  Call me silly, but I recall the McCarthy era and I'm sure many honest, outspoken and opinionated people thought they were safe to disagree with their government too.  As we all know, they were very wrong to think that.

Now believe me, I'm the first one to say yes, we need to be cautious in this country, we need to be alert, and we need to be aware when it comes to terrorism.  Of course we do.  But what I got out of this entire email was "fear"..... that this Rep is willing to put fear of what could be, might be, above all else.  Even to the detriment of free speech and the other freedoms we now take for granted.

So while, yes, it was very nice that she personally responded, I'm afraid I'm back to square one.  When this comes before the Senate, I'm sure there's no doubt that she's not changing her vote.  For all of my concerns about this bill, it didn't make her reconsider in the least.  Nor did she sway my opinion and view one iota.  OH and by the way.....I don't know about you, but I was a little offended about her comment "anyone who doubts what's going on inside our borders must have already forgotten Timothy McVeigh."  Excuse me.....I remember it quite clearly and all the horrific loss of life.  But I also feel this bill is definitely not the answer to prevent a recurrence of Oklahoma City.

See you here next time........