Those Aren’t For You!

Upraised Fist - Symbol of PowerPlease understand that when it comes to “Civil Rights” or, as the Liberals, Progressives, and their minority tenants more and more want to call them, “Civil Liberties,” all Americans must remember that, if your White, Christian, and/or Heterosexual – i.e., part of what is the norm – those aren’t for you. “Civil Rights” weren’t created, developed, and promulgated for your protection; they are solely meant for the benefit of minorities, more often than not at your expense. They are a sword aimed you, not a shield for your protection.

The lone exception to this is that, going by the slant of media coverage and the prevalence and results of lawsuits of federal investigations, “Civil Rights” are a sword in the hands of any womyn who chooses to attack a Straight, White man with it. Whether or not this is also true of attacks against non-White and/or Queer males is unknown but doubtful.

This means that supporting “Civil Rights” is directly contrary to the interests of the normal or normative American. That being the case, whether or not any individual still decides to support “Civil Rights” is a matter of moral choice – charity is, after all, always contrary to one’s self interests yet is a good act.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | |

NDAA 2012 Disinformation

Screaming in ignorance about NDAA 2012Predating the explosion of angst against SOPA and PIPA was all the screaming, moaning, and hand-wringing over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 – specifically those sections dealing with detainee matters.

Hordes of people, on the Left and the Right, were screaming about how those sections of the NDAA 2012 would allow the government to indefinitely imprison Americans without charges or trial – a gut shot to the Constitution.

Truth be told, I was close to being one of them. The only reason that I didn’t join in the ranting was that there were two versions of the bill in question, one in the House and one in the Senate, and both were being rewritten and reworded too rapidly for me to keep up with them.

When you have to redo a draft post three times in five days, it’s time to step back and wait till things settle – if one cares at all about posting reasonably accurate information.

By the the time the dust settled the issue was laid to rest, despite Obama’s campaign statement upon signing the NDAA 2012 into law.

My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens … Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.

— President Obama, January 1, 2012
NDAA 2012 Signing Statement

The dangerous language that had been in earlier, working versions of both the House and Senate versions of the bill was removed and specific exceptions for American citizens, legal residents, and anyone apprehended within US borders were coded into the final, Enrolled bill which Obama signed into law at the beginning of the year.

Yet the insanity continues, further fueled by Obama’s useless signing statement, as if these very much needed corrections were never made.  Disinformation continues to be spread and the ignorant masses keep lapping it up.

To debunk this idiocy all one has to do is to read the relevant sections (1021 & 1022) of the final version of the 2012 NDAA:

NDAA 2012, Title X, Subtitle D, SEC. 1021

Affirmation of Authority of the armed forces of the United States to detain covered persons pursuant to authorization for use of military force

AUTHORITIES. — Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

— NDAA 2012 p. 265

Under NDAA 2012 the US military still doesn’t have the right to indefinitely detain any US citizen or legal resident. It wasn’t even granted the right to indefinitely detain illegal aliens who are captured or arrested within US borders.

NDAA 2012, Title X, Subtitle D, SEC. 1022

Requirement for military custody

(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS. — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS. — The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

— NDAA 2012 p. 266

The NDAA 2012 has not in any way called for the requirement of military custody of American citizens or expanded those requirements for legal residents.

But over three weeks after the NDAA 2012 was signed into law and longer since its final version was enrolled people are still ranting and raving over it – all of them referencing admittedly heinous verbiage that was in earlier versions of the bills.

Yes! Earlier versions of the NDAA 2012 included some of the most dangerous language I’ve seen in proposed legislation and, again yes, that language was made even more chilling in context due to some of the rhetoric by individual legislators who obviously didn’t want to abide by the Constitution and had no qualms about “disappearing” American citizens.

Those dangerous and unconstitutional provisions did not, however, survive the final writing of the law. Let me repeat that – Those dangerous and unconstitutional provisions did not survive the final writing of the law

If one wants to continue complaining about the NDAA 2012 and not look like an idiot while doing so, different arguments will have to be raised.

Possibly Valid Complaints

Depending upon your sensibilities the complaints below would still be valid:

  • NDAA 2012 keeps Gitmo open and prevents Obama from moving detainees into the US civilian prison or courts systems
  • NDAA 2012 calls for detention of enemy combatants until the end of hostilities, which is an unforeseen and unforeseeable date in the War on Terror
  • NDAA 2012 could be interpreted as formally legalizing Extraordinary Rendition

But, for the sake of providing some evidence that the American people aren’t a ignorant as many claim us to be, quit ranting about things – no matter how horrific they were – that never saw the light of day as law.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

War Crimes

Americans need to put a stop, by any and means necessary, to the encroachment of the Nanny StateIn the battle of the bulge, the manufactured Liberal assault on “obesity,” the nanny state has committed what can be described as war crimes. Of course, since these are crimes against American civil liberties, the Left will not care because it’s in a good cause.

Requiring certain students to wear wristwatchlike devices that track and report upon their vital signs and activity levels is beyond the pale.

Infuriatingly, schools in St.  Louis, MO, and South Orange, NJ have already been forcing targeted students to wear the devices manufactured by the Finnish firm, Polar Electro, for some time and now Long Island, NY has chosen to similarly invade American children’s basic privacy in their war on what they’ve decided is obesity.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Obama Seems Confused

Once again Obama seems a little confused. The boy has again lost the logical thread of America’s narrative and can’t seem to draw even the most basic correlaries between his actions and the actions of others. Obama seems to have stared into the looking of his narcissism too long and fallen through it into some fantasy world.

In his mind there’s no similarity between his ability to unilaterally have the military kill an American and Congress allowing the Military to detain them.

Worse, Obama thinks that what he’s done and plans to continue doing is OK and what Congress is doing is wrong. That either shows his lack of cognitative ability – pattern matching being a basic ability of sophonts – or his utter confusion about where he personally exists respective to the laws of America.

Tags: | | | | | | | |

The Right Call But…

The California Supreme Court ruled on Monday, January 3, 2011 that the police do not need to obtain a warrant prior to searching a cell phone owned by someone who is currently under arrest. Such searches were ruled legal under the prevailing legal precedents surrounding Searches Incident to Arrest.

Legally this was the right call and decision.

It’s also, however, a decision that has scared and angered a number of people, for variety of knee-jerk, self-serving, and some valid reasons respectively, since the shifts in technology have lured many people into storing vast amounts of private information within their mobile devices.

We granted review in this case to decide whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution permits law enforcement officers, approximately 90 minutes after lawfully arresting a suspect and transporting him to a detention facility, to conduct a warrantless search of the text message folder of a cell phone they take from his person after the arrest. We hold that, under the United States Supreme Court’s binding precedent, such a search is valid as being incident to a lawful custodial arrest. We affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment.

— Supreme Court of California
The People v. Gregory Diaz (S166600)

The police have the legal right, as affirmed multiple times by the SCOTUS, to search anything on the person of- or in the immediate control of anyone that they arrest without the requirement of obtaining any form of warrant to do so. Any evidence found during such searches is admissible in court and is not limited to such as is pertinent to the charges that the arrestee was originally detained for.

The previous SCOTUS opinions on: Harris v. United States (1947), United States v. Rabinowitz (1950), and Chimel v. California (1969) even extend this right of search and seizure to the room in which the suspect is arrested within – Chimel being a limiting factor since the Court held that the seizure of the entire contents of a house and its removal to FBI offices 200 miles away for examination, pursuant to an arrest under warrant of one of the persons found in the house, was unreasonable.

None of this is new; this is settled law. What is new is the amount of type of data that people carry on their persons and which is therefor subject to warrantless search in the event of their arrest.

Tags: | | | | | | | | | |