Discussion of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Happy Monday everybody.  I hope you’ve got your thinking caps on today.  (I’m actually posting this on Sunday night, so for those of you who check in Sunday evening you’ll get the post early!)

Years ago I was sent to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba several times for training.  My unit was sent down at least three times that I can remember and our deployment there was usually between two weeks and a month.  In all honesty we had a blast while we were down there.  We got to shoot lots of LAAW rockets, throw grenades until our arms got tired, shoot the Ma Deuce (.50 caliber machine gun) and the M60 until our ears rang even with earplugs in and all kinds of excellent training.  Then after dinner it was beer call down on Cable Beach and we’d get hammered the rest of the night.  What’s not to love?

That was before Gitmo became something else…

I’ve been looking over parts of the NDAA bill that people are talking about and I’ve got to admit that with all the government double speak I’m a little confused as to if Americans are actually at risk of being arrested and held indefinitely without a trial.

After doing a Google search to try and figure out what the bill actually means I ran across this site, which parses out the language in such a way that it does indeed look like the US Government has the authority to arrest Americans and detain them indefinitely.  Then I read this author’s analysis and they both seem to agree that we’re giving up rights.  The first author is a little more vehement in his commentary, but even the second author agrees.  The second article has a quick history behind the bill as well.

In short, it certainly looks like the government can indefinitely detain Americans if they’re captured outside the United States and maybe if they’re captured inside the US.  That’s the part that isn’t 100% clear.

I won’t try and tear the language apart here.  Lets assume that you’ve done your own reading and formed your own opinions on the subject .

Now let me ask you some questions:

1.  In your opinion does this bill mean that we’re giving up even more of our rights?

2.  Do you think it’s a good idea?

3.  Is this constitutional?

Give me some feedback about what you think, or what you may have read and how you feel about the bill.

Shout it out in the comments.

-Jarhead Survivor

BTW:

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than
those who falsely believe they are free.”

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

*Special thanks to Gat31 for emailing me on this topic and getting me thinking about it.

  • BUDDY January 8, 2012, 8:34 pm

    I think that we are giving up rights with this one. The wording is what scares me, they could have made it very plain (as they could with a lot of the bills) but with it as is what is to stop them.
    This is not a good idea.
    I pretty sure it would be unconstitutional.

    My two cents

    Reply
  • JohnDoe1999 January 8, 2012, 9:47 pm

    1. Obviously. “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.” – James Madison.
    Unless people figure out that power corrupts and and absolute power corrupts absolutely, our Founders will roll in their graves; again I mean.
    2. “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither” – Benjamin Franklin. Home Land Security is the citizen’s job, not the federal nanny. You wanna stop hijackings? Look up who stopped the last couple of attempts. Hint: It wasn’t the guys who put you in a microwave and molest your kids for “safety.”
    3. Anyone with integrity who has read it, already knows the answer. Even traitors deserve a trial, not an assassination; It’s called Article 3 Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.
    Question to you Jarhead: You, me, and the politicians who wrote this bill, took an oath to the constitution. How do you feel about Washington pissing on it?

    Reply
  • kevin January 8, 2012, 10:34 pm

    hell yeah this is just flat out dangerous even the idea of this makes me shiver

    Reply
  • T.R. January 8, 2012, 10:40 pm

    This shouldn’t even be a question , YES we are ………… why does the government NEED to avoid due process of law ? BUT you also have to realize WE THE PEOPLE are not giving ……… they are takeing , WE THE PEOPLE didnt vote for this . Uncle Stalin did . I think its time to get rid of this government ……….. by force if need be .

    Stars & Bars !

    Reply
  • gat31 January 9, 2012, 12:30 am

    Thanks Jarhead for citing me as inspiration for the post, l will return the favor and cite who inspired me for the question.A friend alerted me to Obama signing the bill, and l in turn posted it to my facebook page.(Which l rarely go on) My youngest daughter (of all people) actually curious as to anything l thought important enough to go on facebook for, decided to look it up. She came home the next day and said to me “mom, l looked up that ndaa bill and l had to quit reading because it scared me”. To say she represents the masses out there is an understatement. She is typical of the people who roll their eyes or look at you like you grew a third head whenever you mention anything about how out of control the government is getting.
    Everyday l see more and more things the government is doing sadly not in secret but right out in the open and people just let it happen without even a whimper. This is what made me a prepper, this is why l research alternative ways to provide food, shelter, and water for my family. This is why l experiment with every type of growing method l can to insure fresh food for my family, stay up and watch debates and get up early to watch the next one. It’s more than obvious that our current (and past) government is NOT looking out for us. They seem to not even care that they have shredded the constitution and the bill of rights to confetti.
    As current and past servicemen, as freedom loving individuals, as patriots who want to defend those rights, what do we do now coach?
    Calling and writing our congressmen is NOT working. Voting them out is NOT working. (voter fraud keeps them in regardless) So how do we get the 10 percent (all of us awake to what’s happening) to appeal to the 89 percent (the sheeple) to see how corrupt and seemingly crazy this current system is becoming?

    Reply
  • Jason January 9, 2012, 12:41 am

    1. Contextually, yes rights are being taken away from citizens. We are not giving them up, they are being taken from us – huge difference. Truth be known, many have abused & bastardized the freedoms set out in the Constitution & we need some reeling back. However, this is not the answer.

    I believe the “purpose” of this law is pointed at terrorists which is why it gained traction. However, the definition of terrorist & domestic terrorist will become much looser. Example – if M.D. Creekmore continues with his same path of his anti-government viewpoint & continues to encourage that lambasting, he will be labeled as a domestic terrorist. While he believes he has first amendment rights, he will be sorely mistaken & he won’t have the ability to fight it.

    2. Is it a good idea? No. Terrorists need to be dealt with swiftly – it saves money.

    3. Is it constitutional? Are you kidding me? It clearly violates the 4th, 5th, 6th & 10th Amendments. The 7th, 8th Amendments are close to being violated as well.

    Lastly, Goethe was absolutely brilliant, probably near a 180 IQ but he never experienced the type of freedom we enjoy here in the US so I don’t think that quote really applies to us today. He & Emerson were quite similar and I believe he was talking about how one limits their thinking – just when you think you have it all figured out or your life is perfect, another shoe drops or an opportunity is missed.

    A quote from him that I think fits – “Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must”

    Reply
    • sput January 9, 2012, 9:44 am

      Wow , I actually agree with Jason
      It is rights taken in violation of The Bill Of Rights, not rights given by us.
      And my friends, we are already high on the list, as preppers. We “hoard” food, supplies, ammo: talk about freedom and the Constitution. It is not just Creekmore, it is TEA Party supporters, Christians (horrible bigots); we talk of “gummint” conspiracy, and when TSHTF and TEOTWAKI.
      Look to see if food crisis, or all “X-type” firearms must be surrendered, as an excuse when the round-up starts. Do you have camo and/or a firearm? You must be crazy militia (that sorry excuse you are a hunter won’t wash).
      There are so many laws and regulations now that EVERYONE is breaking a law or reg daily, weather or not we know it.

      Reply
      • Jason January 9, 2012, 10:52 am

        Sput,

        I used Creekmore because he is an example of one who is fully abusing his first amendment right because he is inappropriate. He incites a strongly negative view of the government without adding balance to the other side of the equation.

        He shakes his fist & spits in the face of that which gave him that right to do so & that is very wrong thus, becoming what I would deem as an domestic terrorist – that is not the intent of the first amendment. He is what I’d call a “blatant subversive” and believes he can get away with it. In the 1940′s & 50′s he would have been frowned upon by almost every American & quite possibly arrested & thrown in jail.

        Complain, challenge & question the elected decision makers & demand accountability – yes, highly appropriate because it is moving towards a solution & trying to better a condition. The Tea Party only lacks quality, forthright & powerful leadership to CUT THROUGH the naysayers & spin doctors whom all seem to label them as extremists.

        The truth is simple however, getting to it becomes an extreme battle of personal agendas from those few who have gained the most AND complacency from both sides of the fence.

        Reply
        • riverrider January 9, 2012, 11:09 am

          jason, your domestic terrorist is my FREEDOM FIGHTER. i remember when the chetchens were such, and we were supplying arms and support to them. one day after 911, they were “terrorists”. what do you think the boys on breed’s hill would be called today? the loyal nine would be hauled off to gitmo and never heard from again. creekmore is an american citizen, i am an american soldier. i will fight for his right,and yours, to speak his mind. if goons can burn the flag as free speech, i damn sure can say uncle sugar has overstepped his bounds. you say spits on it, i say exercising it. one day soon they will run out of “us” and come after “you”. who will you cry to then? the tea party? do you think jefferson whining to the king won the freedom we enjoyed for the last 200 years? this has gone so far that only blood can bring it back.

          Reply
          • Jason January 9, 2012, 12:19 pm

            You missed the point & reread without the offense blinders on – I wasn’t bagging him, only speaking from observational point of view. If you look at the flavor of the vast majority of the commentors you will notice it is non productive – it is about separation & isolationism.

            Additionally, there roughly 50 people who constantly comment out of thousands upon thousands who read his blog – doesn’t that tell you something?

            Creating fragmentation is not promoting freedom, it’s actually playing into “their” hand. Think about it, successful unity always beats the enemy.

          • PS to JeSter January 10, 2012, 8:38 pm

            I laughed out loud with this line you wrote, what a beauty!

            “Nevermind…I give up! I live in a Country with Marxists on the one hand, sheep in the middle, and lunatics who don’t realize the overwelming majority of Cops and Soldiers are Patriots as well. We’re DOOMED! Time to go by more Spam!”

        • Legion7 January 9, 2012, 3:18 pm

          Jason, you couldn’t be more wrong. “He shakes his fist and spits in the face of that which gave him the right…” What a load of crap. These “rights” are GOD GIVEN, in other words, they don’t come froma amn, king or our so called government. MD is NOT a subversive, he’s a patriot, as am I. We have been pushed so far as to feel our, once again, GOD GIVEN RIGHTS have been taken away by an out of control, onerous government. You are the sheep we despise here in freedom land. Try some water without the KOOLAID in it. You’ll feel better when you wake up.

          Reply
          • Jason January 9, 2012, 5:34 pm

            Isn’t that an interesting comment … the passion to defend someone else makes me wonder who is really “drinking Kool Aid”. Remember that saying came from Rev. Jim Jones & his followers who followed him without question or thought.

            Something you may not know is, I was a regular follower of MD’s blog & even wrote most of his bio as a contribution to him. He has lots of helpful tips & some valuable information, no question.

            I never said he was unAmerican or not a patriot, what I was saying was relative to this article & some of his opinions are beyond reasonable. To encourage isolationism & wait for the world to fall upon you is not the mark of strength in my opinion, it only furthers demise.

            I’m hardly a sheep my friend & the only thing you probably despise is a level head because that takes actual thought & consideration of facts. It is so easy to point the finger, scream, USE ALL CAPS & blame X for your lot in life, but to stand up & actually do something, well that may take a little effort aside from clicking the keyboard & vicarious living.

            The point I am making that you seem to miss by getting so emotional & defensive is to be appropriate AND be effective.

            Why not take a few moments & actually read the Constitution & Bill of Rights, it is abundantly obvious what is the correct course of action to be taken.

            By the way, these are not God given rights – be clear about that. The only rights God gave is life and the free will to choose Him & to continue to do so, nothing more. I’m pretty knowledgable with the Bible & know no scripture(s) that give us the “rights” that you speak of – do you?

            Further, how did the government get out of control? You & me did it by passively sitting, throwing up our hands & whimpering about how we are getting taken for a ride. We live in a democracy where we actually vote for leaders & unfortunately the complacent & probably the most who complain the loudest, do not vote – that is in excess of 60% of Americans in a good year.

            BTW, the right to vote has not been taken away.

          • JeSter January 9, 2012, 9:42 pm

            Who would’ve thunk it!?! I’m on Jason’s side. I haven’t visited Creekmore’s site since he had that crap about US troops killing Citizens several months ago. If you look it up…yes, I AM THAT JeSter.

            He’s NO Patriot. He allowed some bone-stick “richard” who I prefer to call “dick” basically say that I violated the Constitution and am a war criminal for my service in Afghanistan. Oh by the way, he edited some of my replies and when I called him on it, he sent me a personal email to inform me that “I can’t be right about everything”.

            http://www.thesurvivalistblog.net/would-us-policetroops-fire-upon-us-citizens/

            Creekmore was right about one thing! I’m not right about everything. However, facts are stubborn things and they don’t always fit well with, and Dick’s, point of view.

          • T.R. January 9, 2012, 9:48 pm

            LOL , Jason , I also felt the wrath , It was actually very amusing to me , but I just dug in and fought back . Was a great deal of fun . I believe it was my comment about how we should stop bitching and crying about 911 on his remember 911 thread . That got a few panties in a wad . Basically giving the government propaganda value and fear mongering by sniveling and constantly remembering an ass kicking . I guess 10 + years of stagnant conflict with nothing to show for it got some folks upset ……. but it is what it is ………..and it was damn funny !

          • Jason January 10, 2012, 6:58 pm

            JeSter,

            I knew you were a regular on Creekmore’s site & am glad you said what you said – war criminal, indeed! Dick was such an ass to make such a statement. Incidentally, how can a Dick become an ass, is it anatomically possible? ha, ha

            Your post was very well thought out & well organized, Dick was and is a moron without much of a brain. It is tough when you write something that laces together well to have some doofus pick some insignificant point & try to make an issue.

            In a few discussions I had, MD edited some of my posts as well & or would not allow some of my comments to be entered so others could take pot shots at me. I made sure I was clean and to the point but because of his lack of intelligence & or ability to construct a reasonable thought, he elected to have the likes of sad old Lint Picker post his passive aggressive baloney.

            It was the extreme negativity & most of the associated regulars who were ready to jump down someones throat that turned me off.

        • T.R. January 9, 2012, 7:41 pm

          I visit M.D Creekmores site regularly , I dont feel or see how he is abusing anything . He does keep order on his site , But he is not PC . So what ? He is not a revolutionary either . I say flat out that we need violent revolt against the government or secession to get things right before we wake up in the American version of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union . He mainly just talks about living off grid or prepping . MD is a southerner , so he may have a Confederate attitude . I dont know , but I can most certainly relate to anti government .

          Reply
          • Jason January 9, 2012, 8:12 pm

            Of course you haven’t seen it & the order you see is actually from those who are in complete alignment with him. Try directly opposing a viewpoint, it’s a totally different matter – I have a little experience with that.

    • Mechanic43 January 9, 2012, 9:51 am

      Jason I agree with you 100%, and your quote is dead on. We have enjoyed it up until now because it didn’t involve us as citizens, but now the enduring part is here. We have allowed this to happen and have no one to blame but ourselves. It bothers me to think where this could go. I would also add the 1st amendment to your list, it doesn’t actually ban what you can say but it stops people from speaking out due to the very idea of being labeled and eventually locked up.

      Reply
      • Jason January 9, 2012, 11:20 am

        Mechanic,

        Exactly right, you see the point. The only thing to fear is the complacency factor from the masses. The leaders are fat and lazy & use their collective “intelligence” to protect their positions of interest & they are complacent. Makes me wonder – who created that complacency? (We did).

        America is a great country & we know how to rise to the occasion when the duty to protect arises, we’ve proven that many times. The truth as to what makes us a great country has been bastardized which is why there is so much unrest & doubt in the souls of the citizens.

        The terrorists who aided & abetted the pilots of the 911 attacks & other acts to bring us down are imprisoned but allowed feather beds & their Koran because it is their right? Please, spare me with that nonsense. That weakness destroys our strength.

        Sometimes I feel like many would rather argue than do something or anything constructive.

        The broad shoulders of those in leadership is not them physically as it should be or we elected them to be – that shape is held up by a coat hanger called lobbyists.

        Reply
        • Mechanic43 January 9, 2012, 6:17 pm

          “Sometimes I feel like many would rather argue than do something or anything constructive.”

          Exactly, there is a defining moment when you make any argument that will cross a line that your not sure you want to. This may be an argument with a friend or making a statement that “someone” may decide is terroristic. You have to pick your arguments carefully. There comes a point when talk is no longer cheap and may have cosequences, and that is where the “many” are seperated from the “few”, and fact is seperated from fiction.

          Reply
        • T.R. January 9, 2012, 7:45 pm

          Jason , how do we wake up the people before its too late ? as you said , you start talking about the abuse and people look at you almost with fear .

          Reply
          • Jason January 9, 2012, 8:08 pm

            First, it’s not too late. Secondly, the trick is to not let them have anything to hang their hat on – in other words, simple truths. You’ll notice the moment I mentioned & SEEMINGLY inferred “abuse” about the other writer it conjured up all kinds of emotions & polarized positions?

            Jack Nicholson said it best – people can’t handle the truth.

            What people fear most is themselves.

    • Survivor Mike January 9, 2012, 7:27 pm

      I was putting together my thoughts and then read Jason’s comment and couldn’t agree more.

      The term “domestic terrorist” is a slippery slope which is exactly what they want. Even the timing of the bill sailing through Congress and the House was suspect. Right before Xmas when even the most alert Americans are busy preparing for the holidays.

      Also, Obama signed it on New Year’s Eve – everyone is ready to protest then. Sickening.

      Reply
      • riverrider January 9, 2012, 7:34 pm

        jason, so what are YOU doing?

        Reply
        • Jason January 9, 2012, 8:23 pm

          It would be so easy to put back on you but that wouldn’t be any fun.

          I vote, I educate, I read & explain, I mentor, I write in variuos venues. I challenge & don’t back down from “intellectual” bullies & point out the errors of their positions or thinking, I respond to you, I’ve been involved directly with political campaigns as a writer & walk the talk.

          Being 1/2 Irish I fear very little because I’m too stupid to know any better!

          Reply
  • Had Enuff January 9, 2012, 5:03 am

    Our gubmint is preparing for the arrival of civil unrest. This nation has never been do divided since we took up arms in the 1860s. Racial, political, economic, take your pick ,the seeds of unrest have already been sown. All this does is give the feds right to detain and that they will do. Also gives them Carte Blanche to KILL citizens as well. Do you recall they supposedly killed bin laden and another American born al quida? No video, or proof shown as our big eared tyrant did not want to indict himself on murder of a foreign national through international courts. Now he can do so legally and to American citizens as well. I just hope people have been preparing for the fact that our worse adversary will be the government itself. This law is just the tip of the iceberg…

    Reply
    • Legion7 January 9, 2012, 3:21 pm

      It’ll be okay, though. I hear there’s a movie already in the works about how the great leader Obama saved us all by going toe to toe with his Navy Seals to whack Osama. It should be out in theaters just before election time. Hmmmmm…propaganda anyone???

      Reply
      • Jason January 9, 2012, 5:39 pm

        Totally & classic timing – I’ll bet it shows Obama being strong & quite Presidential. Hopefully, many can see through that vail ~

        Reply
  • Spook45 January 9, 2012, 8:40 am

    Not nly does it attack your rights and give powers to people that are NOT designated as such b the Constitution, but when combine it with the previous acts that are similer to it, it basicly eleiminates all of your rights. When/if used in conjunction with John warrner defense Authorization act and PDD 51 you may as well pack for the Gullag!! RIGHTS!!? WHAT RIGHTS?? This is it folks…..

    Reply
  • Templar January 9, 2012, 9:45 am

    1. Yes.
    2. No.
    3. HELL, no.

    Reply
  • john January 9, 2012, 10:46 am

    How to describe this bill? Been here, done that before.

    http://supreme.justia.com/us/277/438/case.html

    “They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone …

    The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachments by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding”
    ————————————

    “There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt” President John Adams

    ————————————

    Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

    President John Adams

    ————————————

    Our Constitution was not designed for an atheist nation.

    Even the “Article” about treason and requiring two witnesses to put someone to death is Biblical. I and others have reminded and warned almost every so called Republican and those running for President that all they have to say is they are not going to borrow more money from other nations because God forbid it for Israel (Deut 28:12) and we were founded by the ten tribes of Israel.

    You can’t even get Ron Paul to acknowledge it this way, which is why they will all fail. I did not bother with Herman Cain,I already warned his church two years ago where is is a deacon. I think if Ross Perot (a great Christian and military guy) had framed it this way, he would have been elected, I voted for him twice before I was a true Christian.

    When you are so immoral that you borrow against your unborn grand children’s future and slaughter them in the womb, while elected officials avoid mentioning God’s law as a reason not to do something, then the Constitution becomes nothing more then toilet paper to wipe your self-righteous behind. Which has become SOP for elected officials. Congress is not to blame, the people that elect them are because we put them there.

    Congress even mocked the Bible and John Adams (twice at least), in Obama Care. The best thing for the USA would send them all home and install 535 illegal Mexicans that can’t read or write English because the government has already written enough laws to “help” us.

    I prep in the hopes of surviving the down fall of the USA to rebuild it in the way God, George Washington, and John Adams would approve.

    Reply
    • Jason January 9, 2012, 11:55 am

      Actually the constitution was designed for atheists, Christians, Muslims & all points between as was the Bible.

      First the constitution – remember “freedom of expression & religion” AND separation of church & state? That includes everyone & every sect. Sure great Christian men were inspired to create this great nation but non Christians were in the mix as well.

      Bible – God’s law is God’s law & can ONLY apply if you believe in God then further accept Christ as your personal savior. While there eternal consequences for turning your back on God, that is solely upon the individual because God gave us free will to chose Him or not.

      The Bible is chockablock full of examples of those free will choices & consequences from the Old Testament to the New Testament but it is up to the individual to cross the line to enter God’s family.

      The Bible was NOT meant to be used as a weapon rather, an instruction book with some very sound advice that usually runs counter to entitlement beliefs, which is inherent to us all – even Christians after we join God’s family and that step does not make us perfect, only forgiven.

      Was Jesus offended by the Pharisees, the other “religious” leaders, the tax collectors, prostitutes & governmental leaders? Did he speak out against them in any damning way? Other than turning the tables over in the temple once – no. In fact, the last things He said on the cross was – “forgive them Father, for they do not know what they do”. I think our example & the deeds & actions of God in the flesh speaks volumes.

      It is not productive to do God’s job & condemn others rather, live as God wants you to live and be a bright light to others not a dark, annoying cloud.

      Reply
      • Adam January 10, 2012, 11:05 am

        There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. It merely states there will not be a state sponsored religion. This is so everyone is free to follow their religion freely. It was never meant to say that the State can’t have religious things on their property or say prayers, etc. It was just that if someone wants to put up a cross, someone else can put up a star of david or a crescent alongside it.

        Reply
        • Jason January 10, 2012, 3:43 pm

          Good call, thank you for pointing that out. I wrongly extrapolated from a Jefferson letter that stated (courtesy of Wikipedia):

          “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

          Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.

          Reply
  • Timetochange999 January 9, 2012, 10:49 am

    I want to comment on the wording of the NDAA — just the fact that there are disparate opinions about whether it applies to Americans indicates that it it is a poorly written law and that our congresspersons are doing a poor job. My letters/emails fell on deaf ears and none of my legislators made any effort to amend the wording of the law. It would seem to me that any lawyer could take the existing wording and twist it any way they want (including government lawyers wanting to suppress free speech).

    Reply
  • Prepared N.D. January 9, 2012, 11:07 am

    Thanks for bringing more attention to this Jarhead. You’re preaching to the choir here, but every little bit helps.

    Not only does the bill bother me, the way it was passed bothers me. This started getting a lot of attention and then supposedly the section in question was removed – everyone settles down a little bit and then as the last piece of official business for 2011 it gets passed WITH the language in question.

    http://youtu.be/xm19GQKNWeM

    Reply
  • mainerinexile January 9, 2012, 12:31 pm

    obama himself recently said he had the right to detain american citizens without cause and without warrant, indefinately, but that he wouldn’t use that right… like we can believe anything HE says…

    Reply
  • Steve January 9, 2012, 12:55 pm

    We’re long past the point of political solutions. The only ones left are the ones the founders outlined when a government becomes tyrannical. But how does when know when to act? For the founders it was the Boston Massacre. What will it be for this generation?

    Reply
    • Jason January 9, 2012, 1:14 pm

      “What will it be for this generation?” The viral effect of the Internet.

      We aren’t beyond hope because the Internet can level the playing field but must be used for the purity of truth, not as a vehicle to bitch & complain more because that only exacerbates the problems.

      Reply
      • Legion7 January 9, 2012, 3:24 pm

        You mean the same internet that the NDAA now gives the government control of????

        Reply
        • Jason January 9, 2012, 3:29 pm

          Exactly – it is far too pervasive to control at this point. Besides, is their an effective alternative? No.

          Reply
          • riverrider January 9, 2012, 7:39 pm

            jason, so lets have a flashmob at 1600 pennsylvania ave? i’m in.

          • Jason January 9, 2012, 7:58 pm

            I guess you want to be first to test the NDAA Law – let me know how it works for you.

  • Adam January 10, 2012, 11:08 am

    I was curious about this myself because of the language of the bill. I started researching the speeches given in Congress. Here is one from Sen. Lindsey Graham SC-R, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv9-sN9LpS4.

    It pretty much says that the law was meant for U.S. Citizens to be held without the protection of our Constitution.

    Reply
    • Jason January 10, 2012, 12:46 pm

      Very interesting video, thank you Adam.

      One thing I have learned over the years is, a really good lawyer is great salesperson that happens to understand the law.

      Reply
  • No Comment January 10, 2012, 10:11 pm

    They don’t need any “laws” to do whatever they want.

    I agree with Jason! The LORD, will protect us. As long as we OBEY, we are free!

    Is it time to render Ceasar yet?

    I will submit now, may I have a cookie?

    Reply
    • Jason January 10, 2012, 11:01 pm

      NC,

      You are exactly right.

      How about a fortune cookie? :-)

      Reply
  • Uriel January 11, 2012, 12:05 am

    The NDAA itself is not much of a threat. Although loosely and poorly worded, it does NOT give the President the authority to “detain” U.S. citizens for “domestic terrorism” or any other reason. After all, how could it? Congress doesn’t have that power, so how could they grant it to the President?

    But, when I say that, it invokes the salient point made by “No Comment”. That is, if Obama & Co. wish to impose a Police State and indefinitely detain U.S. Citizens, they hardly need a “law” to allow them to do it. No such power exists to be granted to them, and no such law would be Constitutional. I doubt very much that that would stop them.

    In other words, the NDAA is ALMOST irrelevant. I say “almost” because the NDAA (or some other law or court opinion) may be used by the regime as a fig leaf to legitimize their tyranny in the eyes of the Left and in the propaganda of the S. M..

    It should be noted, however, that the killing of Awlaki set the uncontested precedent for the utter elimination of DUE PROCESS. It may not seem like it, but, process is important. Lowly “process” is the only thing standing between you (and me) and the Gulags.

    Get used to it, the system is busted and there’s no going home again. I still hold some hope for this year’s elections; but, not much. Even should this nation get the best possible result in November, there will be no roll-back of the piecemeal tyranny instituted over the last century. The most that can be gained is a temporary reprieve from taking those last sliding steps down the slippery slope to absolute communist despotism. This, or course, would have the effect of kicking the can down the road to our progeny so that they — rather than we — will have to make the tough decisions regarding the collapse of the government, the economy, the society, and the nation, and the tougher choices about what to do about it (CW2.0, etc). Meanwhile, indoctrination, piecemeal communism, and acclimatization to tyranny will continue apace; making any potential “fix” that much harder the longer it is put off.

    As others above mentioned, WE (i.e., you and I and those like us — and NOT the brain-dead watchers of the Kardashians) were supposed to be vigilant. That was to be the price of Freedom. WE (and our parents, and their parents before them) failed. Now comes our PENANCE.

    Now, I’m a free man. And an “indefinite detention” in some American Gulag won’t change that. A free man cannot be defeated, only killed. I’m a free man, and I’ll die that way. But, … I’d kinda rather not. I’d rather have a Free Nation with a Free Market, and guaranteed natural Freedoms. Of course, that’s just me.

    Reply
    • mainerinexile January 12, 2012, 8:39 am

      awesome post, and i agree with you wholeheartedly!

      Reply
      • Uriel January 12, 2012, 10:28 pm

        Thank you, Mainerinexile. It’s my first comment here.

        I hate being so pessimistic (though, it DOES come pretty naturally to me); but, I can only see what I can see.

        Reply
  • john January 11, 2012, 11:59 am

    > Actually the constitution was designed for atheists, Christians, Muslims &
    > all points between as was the Bible.

    I ask that you prove those two points with actual facts and references..

    Then I will point out the colony charters, except Georgia, stated it was being founded to promote Christianity. That many early state consititutions required public servants to be Christian, that stated if you were an athiest you were mentally unbalanced, and some even forbade Roman Cathlolics from immgrating or serving. Even 100 years after Nantes.

    Some are really special such as “liberal” Massachusetts’s 1860 Constitution which lumped blacks and drunkards into the mix of those unworthy and unable to hold public office. While blacks had actually served in office in southern states before the Civil War. Sometimes reading actual sources page by page even though they are 6″ tall lets you see how people rewrite history to hide the past with they now disagree or are ashamed to acknowledge.

    You should look up PA’s 1681 charter sometime. It is an informative read.

    I was surprised Dick Morris pretty much got it right when he stated the Civil War was a religous Protestant war that had it’s start in England.

    The Constitution was designed by Protestants for a Protestant nation. As simple as that.

    > First the constitution – remember “freedom of expression & religion” AND > separation of church & state? That includes everyone & every sect.

    Freedom of religion was added so the Quakers of PA could freely worship without paying tithes to a Federal government ruled by Protestants. The limit was being placed on the Federal government, not the state governments. It was expected that state governments could establish any religion or rules that they wanted. *

    Why was it added? Because of William Penn. What did Penn’s will state? That upon his death if his sons did not vigorously promote Christianity that the colony/charter/land ownership would be given to the people instead.

    ==========================================
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

    Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

    Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.

    President John Adams
    ==========================================

    When the founders mention a religious people they are talking about Christians, not athiests or Muslims.

    What did Thomas Jefferson do? He wrote a Bible specificaly for Indians, then Congress paid for it to be printed and distributed to the Indians.

    The Supreme Court for the 1st time in history is totally occupied by those who do not believe in grace, upon which the Protestant USA was founded. So, it is no surprise to see yet another repressive bill pass through Congress that relies on things and supression for security.

    Reply
  • Sylvester Brzostowski January 12, 2012, 8:16 am

    Awesome writing style!

    Reply