we have to honor and respect the rights of idiots as well as the rights of well-informed and conscientious men and women ...

But does "honor and respect" imply that we have to VOTE FOR so ^$%#@ many of the #*$@#! idiots?

(There seems to be a pattern ...)

As written, the bill in question calls only for formation of a panel to "study" whether there is a "need to study" whether there is "home grown terrorist enlistment" that "needs to be studied" in the US.

At first glance, unless I missed something, the "amateur proficiency" of the author(s) is obvious from the recruitment of members of the committee entirely from within government or from "contractors" the government knows about. Based on recent past performance, this is NOT A GOOD WAY to find about what the whole of the US is up to, and renders the committee unlikely to achieve more than could be accomplished by any class of third grade boys checking on the critical questions of - "mine's longer than yours but how'd his get so thick." (INTROSPECTION at it's most useless?) It does allow per diem payments that assigned committee members might not otherwise get, and allows a few (hopefully very few) additional contracts to think tanks who may have made ($) contribution$.

It's unlikely that the committee will identify any of the several terrorists currently in Congress.

While this gloriously named committee has the commission to "study," I didn't see an authority to subpoena witnesses in a form common in this kind of porkbarrelling, which renders the committee sort of "Capons in the hen house." The concern must be that without subpoena power, the bill passes easily; and the additional empowering can be slid in place later as a rider on a totally unrelated bill - probably without most of the Congress even detecting that it's being done.

It must be remembered that members of Congress can't always be as completely stupid as they look.

(Yes they can!)
(But maybe they're not.)
(How can we tell?)
(Wait and see.)
(That's too late.)

John