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.

That fundamental, self-imposed ignorance, of course,  never seems to stop these cretins from yammering about things about which they know nothing or next to nothing.

Most hilarious reaction is the SOPA Strike or Blackout protest going on today (January 18, 2012).  Well over 99% of the sites choosing to “go dark” are so inconsequential that their permanent loss would go utterly unnoticed by the internet public at large.

NOTE: This blog would also most definitely fall into that 99%, as would virtually all personal websites. I have some comforting illusions but this blog’s importance isn’t one of them.

On the slim chance that you, my dear reader, wish to be one of the 1% who isn’t bleating in ignorance born rage, links to the full text of both SOPA and PIPA can be found below:

Texts of SOPA & PIPA

• Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) [H. R. 3261]
• Protect IP Act (PIPA) [S. 968]

At least after reading the bills in question one can, if one still has an issue with one or both of them, have complaints and arguments based upon actual verifiable facts as opposed to the drivel certain agendists spoon feed their drones. And it’s not inconceivable that you would still take issue with SOPA and PIPA; like all laws, there’s room for argument over the details – especially over the various amendments and riders that are always added to bills in Congress.

The most strident of the complaints from the willfully ignorant masses, however, seem to fall into three categories: theft of intellectual property is OK; SOPA & PIPA will lead to censorship; and applying nations’ laws to cyberspace is wrong.

Theft of Intellectual Property is OK

Many who hate SOPA and PIPA just hate copyright law the in first place. These are the same sorts of vermin who make up the backbone of the OWS rabble. They support theft from “rich” content produces and want their entertainment or software for free or nearly so.  For them piracy is a form a wealth redistribution that largely bypasses the monetary system.

For them, I believe from what I’ve heard and read, it’s those parts of the bills that allow for the content creators to expand the “take down order” process to an offender’s advertisers and payment processors that bother them the most.

While not a defense for these beliefs, the ongoing punitive foolishness of the MPAA and RIAA regarding copyright infringement does make them unsympathetic and easy targets for spite.

SOPA & PIPA Will Lead to Censorship

Many who hate SOPA and PIPA don’t hate them because of what’s in the bills themselves. They just believe that it will lead to censorship in the future and, hence, have to be killed now.

I’m always leery of slippery slope arguments. As a nation we’ve heard the slippery slope used to justify the Jim Crow laws and our involvement in Vietnam, to name just two historic examples. We’re also currently hearing it in the war over gay marriage, which opponents say will lead to legalizing polygamy and pedophilia.

Objectively this could happen. SOPA and PIPA could be the foundation for later laws that enact internet censorship in America. Any restriction, however, could lead to greater and more onerous later restrictions just as any law intrinsically carries the possibility that it will be abused by those who enforce it.

Applying Nations’ Laws to Cyberspace is Wrong

Many who hate SOPA and PIPA hate the idea of applying a nation’s laws – or any law at all – to the internet. To these sorts the interaction of cyberspace and nation space must always be a one way street, with the internet being what affects or restricts nations and never nations affecting or restricting their populations’ access to- and use of the internet. These are the same sort of idiots that think the internet is Human right and, like all such cult-minded individuals, they can’t be argued with and should be largely ignored.

A subset of these people have a similar but more rational complaint. They fear that America enacting laws such as SOPA and PIPA would likely result in other nations governments to do similarly, in service to whatever political or social policies they value – whether those are restricting: pornography, hate speech, blasphemy, insults to public officials, or political dissent – thus potentially restricting access to foreign – possibly American – content for reasons that Americans find abhorrent.

There’s a wee bit of the slippery slope argument in this fear but it seems reasonable to think that other nations might follow the perceived spirit of America’s lead in this issue but apply their own sensibilities to it, which might be at odds with our own. I just don’t see where this is a problem.

The internet isn’t wholly separate from the world and individual nations have the right to place restrictions on what foreign content is available to their populations, just as any border carries some level of security. If Americans don’t agree with another nation’s restrictions it not the restrictions we really disagree; it’s the underlying sociopolitical structure of the nation in question.

~*~

The truly sad yet ironic thing is that if people weren’t so willfully ignorant and actually read these bills instead of trusting the jabbering of agendists, partisan pundits, and demagogues soon far fewer bills that people disliked would even get to committee.

Then again, expecting more of people than of the politicians they elect – who can’t or won’t read the bills they’re voting upon – is probably both stupid and borderline insane.

Obama has no plans to allow Congress such oversight of his actions.

The House Republican proposal would require Congress to approve any regulation that is estimated to cost the U.S. economy more than $100 million a year, would result in an increase in prices, or have adverse effect on competition or jobs.

All my readers know that I loath Obama but there is no doubt in my mind that he’d be perfectly correct in vetoing the REINS Act if it ever managed to reach his desk. The Executive is not subordinate to the Legislative and this Act seeks to make it so.

Breath. I know it seems profoundly shocking that I agree with Obama on something, especially a contest between him and the GOP, but it does happen upon the rare occasion.

If the REINS Act were to become law, we might well as go ahead and subsume the whole of the Executive into the Legislative because very few, if any at all, federal regulations don’t cost the U.S. economy more than $100 million a year, result in an increase in prices, have adverse effect on competition or jobs, or some combination of the three.

As this is true for one’s house so it is true for the People’s house, the US House of Representatives. It must be swept clean and sanitized, and any disease-bearing vermin within it must be expunged in order for America to regain its health and vigor.

It would be both wise and prudent for Americans to remember that the 2012 Elections encompass more than just a presidential election; the entirety of the House is up for reelection as well, with all 435 seats being in play on November 6, 2012.

Securing the White House is certainly important, both functionally and symbolically, but all federal laws start in the US House of Representatives. Completing the “spring cleaning” started with the 2010 mid-term elections is imperative if the renewal of America is to continue and it’s rebirth is to come full term.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down.

I can tell you that if it was me, I would resign. Because public service is exactly that, it’s a service to the public. And when you get to the point where, because of various personal distractions, you can’t serve as effectively as you need to at the time when people are worrying about jobs and their mortgages and paying the bills, then you should probably step back.

– President Barack Obama
NBC’s TODAY, Durham, NC, June 13, 2011

An interesting question, and one that Obama might actually be asking himself, is what should a politician do when he’s the distraction preventing effective service at the time when people are worrying about jobs and their mortgages and paying the bills?

Others in high office have asked themselves that hard question and answered it by placing their constituency before their self-interest. One wonders if Obama will do the same.

Heh, Henh, Henh, Henh. He Texted His Weiner

Weiner’s pathetic and buttheaded behavior was and is nothing more than a simple case of form following dysfunction.

It’s actually fun watching her twist in the wind and whine, as only the frustrati among America’s domestic enemies can whine, now that America has arisen from it’s Liberal fever dream and has begun the arduous process of retaking our nation and restoring it to its proper form and glory.

It’s certainly singing, or at least baying, a different and more mournful tune now

When America’s enemies held sway in both houses of Congress and the White House it was strident marches of “elections have consequences.” Now that the Tea Party Patriots have sent their representative to correct the House of Representatives and Obama’s hold on the White House is in doubt it’s bawling a plaintive lament that “elections shouldn’t matter so much.”

To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors.

That’s a Liberal for you; when they have taken power, they try to rule and disregard the will of everyone else, but when they’ve been ousted, they cry for compromise and “shared values.”

Pelosi presents an odd problem. It’s too stupid and evil to be allowed to live and too pathetic and comical to exterminate.

Its behavior does make sense though. It has seen the American people rise up and place our representatives in political office and has nothing left to it but to beg for establishment GOP, mostly RINOs and special interest shills, to do as the Democrats had done and “take back” their party from we, the People.

~*~

Keep your eyes open. Travel light but load heavy, and always put another round in the enemy after they’re down.

Don’t expect much of anything to come of this though, despite the relative seriousness of the ethics violations that Rangel has been found guilty of.

Rangel Was Convicted Of The Following Counts

Count 1: Violating solicitation and gift ban: Soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Rangel Center from persons or entities with business before him or his Ways and Means Committee.

Count 2: Violating code of ethics for government service: Accepting benefits under circumstances that could be construed as influencing the performance of his governmental duties, with respect to soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York.

Counts 4 and 5, merged into one count: Violating postal service laws and franking commission regulations: Mr. Rangel was accused of using his franking privileges for the benefit of a charitable organization and for solicitation of funds.

Count 6: Violating House Office Building Commission regulations. Mr. Rangel and his staff drafted solicitation letters on House property.

Count 7: Violation of the Purpose Law and the Member’s Congressional Handbook: Mr. Rangel used House employees and other official House resources for work related to the Rangel Center and used his Congress member’s allowance to pay expenses related to the Rangel Center.

Count 8: Violation of letterhead rule: Mr. Rangel sent letters related to the Rangel Center on House letterhead.

Count 9: Violating Ethics in Government Act and House Rule 26: Mr. Rangel submitted incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and failed to report or erroneously reported items he was required to disclose under the Ethics in Government Act from 1998 through 2008. In particular, Mr. Rangel amended certain financial disclosure statements only after a House committee began investigating his reporting of income from his Dominican villa.

Count 10: Violating code of ethics for government service: Mr. Rangel leased a rent-stabilized apartment on Lenox Terrace in Harlem for residential use only, but was allowed by the landlord, a developer whom Mr. Rangel dealt with in his Congressional capacity, to use the apartment as office space for his campaign committee. The arrangement could be construed as influencing the performance of Mr. Rangel’s official duties.

Count 11: Violating the Code of Ethics for Government Service: Mr. Rangel violated the code by failing to report rental income on his Dominican villa.

Count 12: Violating the letter and spirit of House Rules listed above.

Count 13: Conduct reflecting discreditably on the House: Mr. Rangel’s improper solicitations and acceptance of donations for the Rangel Center; his misuse of House staff, letterhead and franking privilege for the Rangel Center solicitations; his failure to file full financial disclosure statement; his failure to report the rental income on his Dominican villa; and his use of his rent-controlled residential apartment for his campaign office all brought discredit to the House.

The House could expel him from Congress over charges such these, but anyone with even half a brain knows that they would never enact such a punishment upon Rangel.

Most likely all that Rangel will receive as punishment for his multi-decade career of corruption is a “sternly worded letter of reprimand” that will be delivered to him in relative private. At the very most, and this is highly unlikely, the House will formally censure him, which means that “sternly worded letter of reprimand” will be read aloud before the House and entered into the House records verbatim.

Do not, even for a second, believe that the American people can get justice from Congress or expect them to police their own. The only way we, the People can moderate their behavior is to take matters into our own hands and enact such justice or retribution upon them as we see fit.

It is not then surprising that Nancy Pelosi was also the biggest loser in the 2010 Congressional Mid-Term Elections. She’s losing the office of House Speaker and she’s seemed to have lost the confidence of the surviving House Democrats.

Of course Pelosi’s delusions know few, if any, bounds are are likely not amenable to conventional therapy. I doubt that she’ll quietly slink off into that dark night of obscurity. She’s not possessed of such basic grace, and she may be looking to get some “pay back” against the Obama Regime, who she no doubts holds responsible for her own failure,

Is the the Blues’ house divided in the wake of their trouncing by the GOP on November 2, 2010? There are some indication that this so and some hints that the surviving Dems are separating into two camps – the Clinton Democrats and the Obama Democrats.

Internecine War Afoot Soon? Clinton Dems v. Obama Dems?

Word on the street (K Street) and scuttlebutt at the Capital Grille is that there might be a Primary Challenge against Obama. Some of those rumors point to a sudden increase in communications between Secretary of State Clinton and outgoing House Speaker Pelosi as the basis for substantiating this idea.

No, none of this has any online sources. It is a mixture of rumor, hearsay, extrapolation upon past and present behaviors by the principals involved, and some basic sociodynamics.

Take it for what it’s worth and no more, but also no less. I did break / predict Sen. McCain’s “choosing” Governor Sara Palin as his VP candidate and running mate a full week before the official announcement after all.

It might get even worse for President Obama than being challenged in the Democratic Primary. Obama is wounded and weak, politically speaking, and there are always scandals and such that could be used to bring him down. If the Dems are split as rumor claims, the Clinton Dems – possibly including Pelosi – might aid the GOP’s expected attacks against Obama and not even block Impeachment proceedings.

Think about it for a moment. Pelosi weakens Obama enough so that Clinton can beat him in a Primary Challenge, then Clinton nominates Pelosi as her VP candidate.

One thing to watch for is whether or not Pelosi resigns from the House entirely and, if so, how she goes about it. Another is what Hillary Clinton is doing and how she presents herself to foreign governments, as principal actor or as Obama’s puppet.

Is the the Blues’ house divided? I think we’ll pretty much know the answer to that by Christmas.