What was that about Jesse Ventura?

Isn't Jesse a guest lecturer at Harvard, not a prof?

And his credentials? What are his scientific credentials? His knowledge of physics? He's a politician who used to be an actor/wrestler. He also has a penchant for narcisissm. He's liberterian in name only. He advocates big brother type policies when they suit him, and he believes no liberterian should support anything but an open border since that would deny liberty to all who would come into our country.

I liked Jesse as a wrestler and an actor. I even liked the novelty of his campaign. But his denial of core Constitutional principles, his love of his own voice, his inability to deal with anyone who would dare disagree with him, and his speak first and think later mentality alienated me. He just can't seem to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric, and I'm just not wild about that. I know, I know...I'm in the minority

 

While I agree with Venturra's stand on 9-11....
I regret the opportunities he's had to make other impressive stands but has not.

But now a little controversy will serve to get free press for his book.

It's doubtful we'll ever have the real story on 9-11.

It's also questionable that there's enough influence between those of us watching the demise of our constitution upon those who can't see the forest for the trees, that we'll wake up intime to exert the peacable power the people of this nation could exercise.

Liberty without law is anarchy. We've been bless to start out as a nation with laws... and the foundation of our laws was the Constitution... and the foundation of our rights in the Constitution was the Bible.

 

Reconsidered

 

RE: H.R.1955-->

This definition is troublesome: "The term `violent radicalization' means 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." Troublesome because, who defines what constitutes "an extremist belief system"?
BUT, this: (Sec 899B, Findings) "8) Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States should not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents."....doesn't this effectively protect, say-- the average Baptist, from any kind of abuse of the law?

 

It is a troubling and unclear statement.
Is it saying "Any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States will recognize and not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.

OR

Is it saying that 'any measure taken to prevent violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically based violence and homegrown terrorism in the United States does not violate the constitutional rights, civil rights, or civil liberties of United States citizens or lawful permanent residents.". [my words to clarify a certain ambiguance in meaning]