"Newstarget.com" is an editorial site, not a news site. He implies a lot in that article to strike fear in the reader:
Based on the loose use of logic in Washington these days, and the slippery interpretation of the meaning of words, "force" could mean:
• A grassroots campaign to barrage Congress with faxes
• A non-violent street protest
• A letter-writing campaign that deluges the Senate with too much mail
• A sit-in protest that blocks access to a business or organization
• A grassroots e-mail campaign that overloads the e-mail servers of any government department or agency
You get the idea. "Force" could be defined as practically anything. And since the "planned use of force" would be considered a criminal act of terrorism, anyone who simply thinks about a grassroots action campaign would be engaged in terrorist acts.
If you stopped someone on the street and handed them a Bible, for example, this could be considered an act of terrorism ("...use of force to promote the individual's religious beliefs...")
If you sent a barrage of angry letters to Washington about global warming and the destruction of the environment by the U.S. military, this could also be considered an act of terrorism ("...to promote the individual's political beliefs...")
If you believe in same-sex marriage and you wrote a letter threatning a sit-in protest in front of your state's capitol building, this could also be considered an act of terrorism, even if you never carried it out! ("...planned use of force to promote a social belief...")
"Force" doesn't mean any of those things and isn't implied in the bill to mean any of those things. The author is trying to scare people who do those things to side with him. It's as dirty, if not dirtier, than FOX news. They are twisting the words of the bill. It probably isn't a good bill to pass, but I think the danger is being greatly exaggerated.
Does it really seem likely that we'll go from being a free country to a 1984 police state in 1 day when a single bill passes? It's impossible - there aren't enough police and officials who would go along with. Policemen and military men care about our freedoms too - they aren't our enemies and aren't going to turn on us with the passing of a single bill.
There may be a lot of sinister things that people in congress want to accomplish, but it's hard to believe that they are conspiring to take away our freedoms without anyone finding out about it ahead of time. Logically, it just doesn't seem possible.
The other person I stay skeptical of is Naomi Wolf because she is promoting the living bejesus out of her book right now "The End of America", and stories like this help lean people towards her beliefs, henceforth buying her book. She was also a member of the Clinton administration - they are supposed to be a part of the NWO too. What if she's on the inside? Which would mean everyone helping promote her is on the inside, including newstarget.com and Alex Jones. The conspiracy gets bigger...
(he he, I said "henceforth")
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM