WTF: Terrorism Definition Changed

Ladies and Gentleman, you are deputized as a modern day Paul Revere by continuing to read this information.

Today, we received a notice from the insurance company about terrorism coverage for my business. It begins with a double negative, "terrorism is not excluded from your current policy." The notice also includes some important information.

The definition of terrorism has officially changed:

You are hereby notified that under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, as amended in 2007, the definition of act of terrorism has changed. As defined in Section 102(1) of the Act: The term "act of terrorism" means any act that is certified by the Secretary of the Treasury- in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States- to be an act of terrorism;

What a terrifying bureaucratically malleable definition. The Act was introduced by the newly elected Democrat controlled Congress in June 2007 and signed by President George W. Bush in December. The letter continues...

to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to human life, property or infrastructure; to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside the United States in the case of certain air carriers or vessels or the premises of a United States mission;

(except Benghazi, Libya?)

and to have been committed by an individual or individuals as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States

(into buying health insurance and give up civil rights protected by the Second Amendment?)

or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion.

It seems this definition specifically denies the possibility that someone in government might use terrorist tactics against the citizens of the United States. There are no separation of powers here. The Executive Branch is completely immune from the label terrorist because it decides who is a terrorist.

Creating an economic climate of desolation, inciting racial hatred, promoting class warfare and pushing sexual wedge issues is not coercion when government elites are responsible. The resulting mass shootings are exclusively due to the insanity of the perpetrators. The "gun-violence" is reportedly caused by guns, not desperate, spiritually depraved people pushed beyond their mental stability via hopelessness. Alan Greenspan is no serial killer! (sarcasm)


America has been great because it has been united. The rhetoric of division has all but ended our days of being a United States. The power hungry group who benefits from our division is our politicians.  Most are seduced by the imperial power collected by our executive branch and are consumed by plots to seize the throne.

Remember our history,

The painter Benjamin West wrote that when he talked to King George III during the Revolutionary War, the monarch asked him what he thought George Washington would do if he prevailed.

Return to his farm, West predicted -- accurately, as it turned out.

"If he does that," King George remarked, "he will be the greatest man in the world."

America and individual human freedom need us to remember the example of George Washington. We require leaders who will end the imperial power of government. Leaders purging government workers who resist the imperial agenda as "insider threats" are inadequate.  The most powerful nation on earth calls for the leadership of the greatest person on earth. Character matters.

Rand Paul's filibuster is an example of what must be done. It can be a tide turner.  We must use such examples to remind our countrymen to compare our leaders to George Washington.

More Information:

Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance notes:

The revised Section 102(1)(A) states, "The term "act of terrorism" means any act that is certified by the Secretary, in concurrence with the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General of the United States—(i) to be an act of terrorism; (ii) to be a violent act or an act that is dangerous to—(I) human life: (II) property; or (III) infrastructure; (iii) to have resulted in damage within the United States, or outside the United States in the case of—(I) an air carrier or vessel described in paragraph (5)(B); or (II) the premises of a United States mission; and (iv) to have been committed by an individual or individuals, as part of an effort to coerce the civilian population of the United States or to influence the policy or affect the conduct of the United States Government by coercion." Section 102(1)(B) states, "No act shall be certified by the Secretary as an act of terrorism if—(i) the act is committed as part of the course of a war declared by the Congress, except that this clause shall not apply with respect to any coverage for workers' compensation; or (ii) property and casualty insurance losses resulting from the act, in the aggregate, do not exceed $5,000,000." Section 102(1)(C) and (D) specify that the determinations are final and not subject to judicial review and that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot delegate the determination to anyone.

Voting Info:

Rep.  Duncan  L.  Hunter: Yea
Rep.  Darrell  Issa: Nay
Rep.  Mike  Pence : Nay

STOP SOPA PIPA

The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect Intellectual Property Acts are two ways that Washington is looking to censor the new media of the Internet. SOPA is the bill in the House of Representatives and PIPA is the U.S. Senate bill. SOPA would require companies that provides access to foreign websites in violation to block access to their subscribers.

A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order...Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within five days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

Here's how Section 101 of the original version of SOPA defines what a U.S.-directed Web site is:

(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide such goods and services (or) access to such goods and services (or) delivery of such goods and services to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.

PIPA raises even greater concerns. CNET reports the following:

An analysis (PDF) of Protect IP prepared by five Internet researchers this spring lists potential security problems. Among them: it's "incompatible" with DNSSEC, innocent Web sites will be swept in as "collateral damage," and the blacklist can be bypassed by using the numeric Internet address of a Web site. The address for CNET.com, for instance, is currently 64.30.224.118.

Website hosts offer many websites often on a single IP (internet protocol) address using "Host Headers". Blocking an IP address will bring down many websites that have nothing to do with the targeted website. We have no idea how either PIPA or SOPA would decide who to censor.

There are two responses to this government violation of our rights. First, on January 18, 2012 many websites will blackout to raise awareness of this travesty. Second, alternative legislation is being offered.

Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican, has introduced the so-called OPEN Act that would cut off the flow of funds to alleged pirate Web sites without requiring them to be blocked. Sen. Ron Wyden, a Oregon Democrat, introduced the bill to the Senate. Once again Rep. Issa has championed for the people he represents.

Fellow SLOB The Liberator Today has more on this subject.