[bunderbunder]

I'm going to guess it's not a hoax. I've seen this kind of thing happen plenty of times - it's pretty standard for what happens when excitable people with an ideological axe to grind and poor competency at reading legalese get together to try and interpret a bill.

Usually the nuttier interpretations follow quite naturally from the popular technique of skipping the Definitions section, and instead consulting with one's own antigovernment paranoia when deciding what a term is supposed to mean within the context of the legal document. In fact it's best to eschew the very concept of context, since it's really only useful for tempering zeal and tarnishing ideological clarity.