Remember president Obama’s NDAA 2012 signing statement?  Remember when he promised the following?

Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that 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. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

In a nutshell, the above was a “promise” from the president that, while he now technically has the authority to arrest you and throw you into a dark hole from which you will never escape and nobody will ever know about it, he won’t.  Since he has never broken a promise since taking office, I guess we can all take him at his word.  Of course, the next one might not be so trustworthy…

Well, now it appears that there’s another loophole in the works.  Ladies and Gentlemen, meet H.R. 3166: Enemy Expatriation Act.

Note the use of the word enemy.

“Representatives” Charlie Dent (R-PA) and Jason Altmire (D-PA) introduced the bill in the House on October 12, 2011.  In the Senate, Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Scott Brown (R-MA) introduced S. 1698.  Perhaps this slipped under the radar with all the hubbub over SOPA, NDAA, and Charlie Sheen’s Tiger Blood?

In case you aren’t familiar with the word “expatriation,” here’s a simple definition:

Expatriate: verb /ɛksˈpeɪtriˌeɪt/ – to banish (a person) from his or her native country.

Here’s how the language in H.R. 3166 itself describes its purpose: “To add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality.”

“Lose?”  Or “have it stripped from them?”  Words mean things, folks.

This bill, if passed and signed into law, would appear to give the president the right to simply take away your citizenship if said citizenship proved to be a problem.  Once that pesky citizenship nonsense is gone, it would seem that he would no longer be bound by the above promise.

In other words, the president now has an out:

Q.  You a U.S. Citizen?

A.  Yes, Mr. President.

Q.  Not any more.  Have fun in Guantanamo, suckah.

No related posts.

Born: Dec 15, 1791
Died: Dec 15, 2011
Aged:  220 years (exactly)

Hyperbole?  Perhaps.  But it’s my blog, and I’ll write whatever the hell I want (while I still can).

The first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution are commonly known as the “Bill of Rights.”  This moniker is somewhat unfortunate, as it is not a collection of individual “rights,” but rather a list of restrictions on the powers of the Federal government.

How are these “rights” doing these days?  I’m glad you asked.  (Otherwise, I’d have stopped writing by now.)

The First Amendment seems to be in pretty bad shape lately.  One has but to look around at how certain state and local governments have been treating the #OWS movement.

“Are you smoking crack, HackerHaus?  That’s local government, not Federal.”

Yes, I’m aware of that.  But as long as the Federal government does nothing to dissuade the unreasonable reprisals (I do think that some of them have been reasonable) we’ve seen perpetrated against some of the protestors by local governments, this one would appear to be on life support.

It’s also kinda hard these days to disagree with the current President without being labeled a racist.  (Somewhat amusingly, making the conversation about race, when it isn’t about race at all, actually is racist.)

Then, there’s the issue of internet censorship.

“Are you high on airplane glue, HackerHaus?  The Internet has opened up free speech to millions all over the world, even playing a huge role in the overthrow of oppressive regimes in the Middle East.”

Enter: the Stop Online Piracy Act [H.R. 3261], which will allegedly allow the Federal government to “censor” portions of the internet.  Other phrases often thrown about are “PROTECT IP Act” and “internet kill switch.”  Go on… google ‘em.

While the first amendment to this bill states “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution,” it is hard to deny that it appears to put into place a mechanism by which this exact imposition could be exercised.

Depending on where you live, the Second Amendment is either in pretty good shape or completely non-existent.

“Are you cooking up meth in your non-existent basement again, HackerHaus?  Those are State governments deciding they don’t want an armed citizenry, not the Federal government.  Besides, guns kill people.”

First off, your anthropomorphized fantasy guns neither exist, nor do they kill people.  People kill people, using a variety of tools ranging from guns to knives to rocks to fists to the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) to Glenn Danzig.  Until you (yeah, you) can heal the human heart, people are going to continue murdering each other.  That understood, you can either make the choice to maintain the means to defend yourself or to be a sheep who relies on others to save them in times of need.  (That choice is yours.  Please do not attempt to make my choice for me.)

Let’s be clear:  The Second Amendment is not about protecting the rights of rednecks to keep rifles in their pick-em-up trucks so they can go a-huntin’ fer deer.  The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and again in McDonald v. Chicago that it applies to the individual States.  But still, the issue of CCW (Carrying a Concealed Weapon) remains largely unaddressed.

One thing that gives me a faint glimmer of hope for the future of CCW is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act [H.R. 822], which would compel all States to recognize all legal concealed carry permits issued by other states.  Of course, such a bill will probably never pass a Democrat-controlled Senate, nor will a Democrat President ever sign it, but it’s nice to fantasize.  The sick irony of this bill is that, were it to pass, I would be able to legally carry a concealed firearm in California under my Arizona CCW… but my friends who actually live there would still be screwed.

I don’t understand why this law is even necessary in the first place.  Why isn’t the so-called “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution) enough?  This clause requires that all states recognize marriage licenses, divorces, drivers licenses, birth certificates, etc., generated by the other States, yet somehow doesn’t apply only to lawfully-issued CCW permits?  Huh?

Now, it would seem that the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments and Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C. § 1385) may also be in danger.  Enter: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 [H.R. 1540].

“Are you playing limbo with the newlywed ghosts of Mr. and Mrs. Adolph Hitler again, HackerHaus?”

This bill, according to CBS News would give the military “a front line role in domestic terrorism cases” and would give the President “discretion in implementing these new provisions.” Per CBS, “the bill never expanded the authority to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges,” but admitted that “proponents said the legislation would codify court decisions finding the President does have the authority to declare ‘enemy combatants,’ as commander-in-chief and under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force against al Qaeda and its allies.”

War on Drugs, anyone?  How many people have been wrongfully imprisoned and had their money and assets confiscated (and never returned, even upon acquittal) on the mere suspicion of being a drug dealer?

To quote the noted historian and philosopher Bruce Willis (as Major General William Devereaux), “The Army is a blunt instrument.  It’s no good for surgery.”

Even the Arabic-language news network Al Jazeera spoke out against this bill, saying “[t]hey’re also already defending the idea that you can extinguish citizen rights in various places if someone is suspected of being a terrorist. So, for example, Al Awlaki was a US citizen, and the claim is that you can engage in a targeted assassination even of a US citizen that contests whether or not he or she is a suspected terrorist.”

“Have you been huffing Slim Whitman again, HackerHaus?  The Obama administration has promised not to use this power.”

Maybe someday, I’ll write another post outlining all of the major promises Presidents have made, then later broken.  Like, after I finish my PhD and have nothing else to do for about a month.  Outlining President Obama’s broken campaign promises alone would require hours.  (Fortunately for my poor little fingers, a Google search for “Obama broken campaign promises” already turns up over 600,000 hits for your reading pleasure.)

Allow me to quote from the Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

And Sixth:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Exactly what part of this is unclear?  Maybe I’m not educated enough to be confused.  I certainly hope SCOTUS has something to say about this before things get out of hand.

Please keep in mind that the President of the United States, who campaigned on closing down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, actually insisted that H.R. 1540 designate the Continental United States as a battleground and American Citizens as viable detainees, and threatened to veto it otherwise.  Some say this is just in there to clear up ambiguities in existing laws and to get their asses out of the fire for killing Al Awlaki.  If that is the case, I really don’t know how to feel about it.

In the House, 283 (190 Republicans/93 Democrats) voted for the bill, but only 136 (43 Republicans/93 Democrats) voted against.  I’m proud to say that my Representative, David Schweikert, voted no.  Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi voted yes.  So did Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.  Somewhat strange to me is that Speaker John Boehner and Representatives Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul seem to have not voted.  How did your Representatives vote on H.R. 1540?

If you’re against 1540, and your representative voted no, please contact them and say “thanks.”  Conversely, if your representative voted yes, why not let them know how you feel?  Or better yet, send them packing in November.  Ya know… I wish there were a space on ballots for voters to explain to those voted out exactly why they were voting them out, and that the vanquished were required, by law, to read all of them publicly.  (And maybe to write “I will not be a douchebag” 300 million times on the chalkboard after school.)

Regardless of whether any of these are actually signed into law, and how these laws are interpreted and executed, the mere fact that our elected representatives sure seem to be up to some sneaky shit (again) should concern you.  It concerns me.

No related posts.

What this means is that County Sheriffs will no longer be allowed to arbitrarily deny any Iowa resident the individual right to legally carry a concealed firearm for personal protection, nor will the burden of proving “need” remain.  If you are a peaceable, law-abiding Iowa resident, chances are that you will qualify.

For those concerned about Iowa turning into the “Wild West,” there is no need to worry.  According to the NRA-ILA:  There are 40 Right-to-Carry states: 37 have “shall issue” laws, requiring that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. Two have fairly-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems. Vermont respects the right to carry without a permit. Alaska and Arizona have “shall issue” permit systems for permit reciprocity with other states, and have allowed concealed carrying without a permit since 2003 and July 2010, respectively.

The majority of U.S. states allow residents to carry concealed, and yet the streets do not run with blood.  Rest assured that permit applicants will still need to go through background checks, and will be denied the right to carry/conceal for valid reasons such as felony convictions, a history of domestic abuse, alcoholism, etc.  Additionally, “all carry permits and permits to acquire pistols or revolvers are invalid when the permit holder is intoxicated.”  If you’re going to drink, don’t carry.

Under the new law, the State of Iowa will also not be flagging driver’s licenses with CCW-related information.  It is not required for you to inform any Police Officer that you are carrying a weapon… but it sure is a damned good idea.  Iowans: If you are pulled over while carrying, place your CCW on TOP of your driver’s license, hold both out the window with both hands, and don’t make any sudden moves.  Hopefully, Iowa LEOs will quickly learn what Arizona LEOs know: the guy with the CCW is a law-abiding citizen and an asset, not an enemy.

The following section was of particular interest to me, a resident of Arizona with heritage ties to Iowa (emphasis mine):

• Q: I live in another state. Will Iowa honor my concealed weapon permit issued in another state?
• A: Iowa will honor any valid carry permit issued by any other state and will grant all privileges to such permit holders as those granted to Iowa residents including the concealed or open carrying of a firearm (excluding those classified by Iowa law as offensive weapons (federal NFA or Class 3)) and the concealed carrying of other non-firearm dangerous weapons such as knives with blades in excess of five inches, switchblade knives, Tasers/stun guns, or any other dangerous weapon. Non-firearm dangerous weapons may be carried openly without a permit. Non-firearm dangerous weapons may also be regulated by local ordinance that is more stringent than Iowa law. You do not have to be a resident of the state from which your permit was issued. However, an Iowa resident may only carry with an Iowa issued permit.
• Q: My state requires a reciprocity agreement before it can recognize an out-of-state permit. Will Iowa enter into such a reciprocity agreement?
• A: No. Iowa law does not provide for entering into reciprocity agreements with states that require them. Iowa will honor any valid permit issued in any other state.
• Q: Will Iowa publish a list of states whose permits will be honored, and will Iowa publish a list of states that will honor the Iowa permit?
• Q: No. Iowa will honor any valid permit issued by any other state. Iowa permit holders will need to check with other states to determine if their Iowa permit will be honored in that state.

They said it three (3) times:  Iowa will honor any valid carry permit, regardless of which state issued it.

A note to those carrying under Arizona’s new “Constitutional Carry” law:  Get trained and get your CCW anyway.  Not only does it look better in the eyes of the law here, it will also allow you to carry in 35 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

(California, Hawaii, and Illinois are missing from the above list for somewhat obvious reasons.  Hopefully, Illinois will be fixed soon.  And with the Open Carry movement in California… there might be hope, eventually.  Why Nevada is missing is beyond me.  Washington State is unfortunately absent because Arizona does not currently have a reciprocity agreement with them, but a non-resident Florida CCW seems to fix that.)

No related posts.

My brothers and sisters, words fail me. 
For those who understand, none are needed.
For those who don’t, none are sufficient.

Peace be with you all.

No related posts.

I would often walk over to eat lunch in the World Trade Center.  I had found a small, but nice book store that I frequented.   I rode the trains that ran from there to parts farther north and into New Jersey.  Going to those buildings was always a treat for me.

The towers were my compass.  If I were discombobulated after popping up out of the subway system, I’d look around, and there they’d be.  Without fail, they always told me where I was and how to get where I was going.  In this age of GPS-enabled smart phones, I may not have needed them as I did then.

I nearly accepted a job offer in New York City that would’ve put me right there, right then.  Due to the relatively low pay offered, I’d have had to live in New Jersey and commute on the PATH train.  Would I have been there, in the basement of WTC 1 nine years ago?  Might I have gotten in early, escaping death?  Would I have joined the relief effort?  Might I have been sick or overslept, missing everything?  The mind plays tricks.

On this day nine years ago, the needle was torn from that compass.

In other countries, “enemies” of my home rose up in the streets to sing and dance in celebration over the deliberate theft of life.  In my country, political enemies stood together, embraced each other on the steps of the very seat of our way of life, and sang patriotic songs.

Upon seeing the latter, a friend remarked that this could be the end of political divisiveness.  Were we finally united?

Nine years later, we are more divided than I can ever remember being in my life.  Our former president involved us in a war that, although voted for and supported financially by his political opponents, was then used by those opponents as a blood-soaked paintbrush to demonize him and others “like” him.

Nine years later, the “other” side is in charge.  Our president is pitting race against race, social class against social class, have-nots against haves.  He travels the world apologizing for a country that he, himself, seems ashamed of.  Envy, greed, fear, and racism are wielded like broadswords to behead all opposition.  Debt and spending are more out of control than ever.  Wealth redistribution is in vogue.  Millions are out of work.  A generation is emotionally scarred.  And I am ashamed.

Nine years later, we have wars and rumors of wars.  We have parareligious attention whores blowing on the flames of hatred like Bear Grylls trying to start a fire with a Q-tip and a dry piece of balsa wood.  Although the prime instigator now claims that he will never burn a Qur’an, “not today, not ever,” much damage has already been done.  In response to the threats of this (largely-) lone nutjub, some in the Muslim world rise up and offer threats of death to all of us because one of us threatened to burn paper.

Nine years later, some rip at the still-fresh wounds by demanding they be allowed to erect a “mosque” near what some consider to be untouchable holy ground.  If you oppose them, you are against the very foundations of freedom.  If you support them, you are heartless and insensitive.  Where is the sensible middle ground?  Where is thoughtful discourse?  Why must everything be a black and white fight to the death?

Nine years later, we still can’t seem to understand the difference between doing what is right in the name of being a good neighbor versus capitulating to a small sect of bloodthirsty radicals.  Across the media spectrum, talking heads on all sides bicker with and dehumanize the opposition.  They are too close to their own personal agendas to realize that they are, in reality, having two different conversations.  Rooted in their ways, financially-dependent on continued hatred and fear, neither side is willing to see a bigger picture.

Nine years later, we are still more imprisoned by our own fear and willingness to push  responsibility for own security and well-being onto a power-hungry minority than we ever were by the possibility of real attacks from abroad.

Nine years later, I have some touchy questions to pose to my more radical Muslim and Christian brothers and sisters.  I do not raise these questions lightly; I ask in all respect and humility.

If it is true that Yaweh willingly offered up his only begotten Son to torture and murder at the hands of the very people he had been sent to redeem, why would Allah be threatened by words or burning paper?  I do not believe that He is.  Why do you believe that He is?  If He is offended, why does He need you to avenge Him?

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share common roots.  If Yaweh and Allah are truly the same God, as some believe, why are they not equally forgiving of our immature humanity?  Muslims burn Bibles and destroy symbols of Christendom and threaten death over cartoons they find offensive.  How is this justifiable?

To my Pastor friend in Gainesville: Do you believe in your heart that Christ would sanction creating more division amongst His children by threatening to burn the holy books of others?  Christ said that there are truly only two commandments:  Love God, and love your neighbor as yourself.  How do you reconcile your choices?

I sometimes call myself a Zen Christian.  I have various reasons for doing so, but they are my own, and I will leave personal interpretation to the reader.  Yasutani Hakuun, a Zen Buddhist teacher, is credited with saying: “The fundamental delusion of humanity is to suppose that I am here and you are out there.”  Until we all truly understand this, I fear that there is little hope.

In closing, I want to say that I didn’t mention the loss of life in Pennsylvania, as I have no direct personal tie to it.  Additionally, I didn’t mention the loss of life in the Pentagon, as my personal ties to it are too great.  As such, I am unqualified to speak about either.

No related posts.

I finished a bit of work this afternoon and, with nothing better to do, decided to wander around.  On my way home, I stopped by Changing Hands Bookstore to look at their second-hand foreign language book collection as I am wont to do.  To my chagrin, there was a large crowd there to hear a speaker, and my language book section had, as usual, been relocated to some unknown location.  At first, I was a bit annoyed, but I’ve become accustomed to this happening when speakers were there.  As the speaker was introduced, my ears perked up.

I have been studying Third Reich history since I was a small boy.  But I had never met a survivor… until tonight.

Ernest W. Michel survived several Nazi concentration camps, including the death camp at Auschwitz.  He told us that shares his experiences, “not because I enjoy it… this is very hard for me.”  He shares because he has a responsibility to bear witness to what he had endured.

These were no stories from some history book.  These were the stirring words of a man openly sharing the most horrific experiences anyone can imagine.  This was a man sharing his life.  Ernest Michel’s words were open, honest, and searing.  His words were just as much a part of his flesh as the number 104995 on his left arm.

He shared personal stories from Kristallnacht, the camps, and of his escape.  He told us of writing down the names and numbers of the countless dead, and of carrying their bodies to their eventual destination: “up the chimney.”  He also talked about his involvement with the Nuremberg trials after the war, including meeting several famous reporters who were covering it for the various world news agencies, such as Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite.

One story that particularly struck me was of his meeting with Hermann Göring, formerly the 2nd most powerful man in the Third Reich.  Apparently, Göring had been reading Michel’s news articles in the German press.  Having heard that Michel was present at the trials, Göring asked if he would be willing to meet with him.  When Michel entered the cell of the former Reichsmarschall, Göring stood to greet him, offering his hand.  Michel refused to shake the hand of the top living Nazi, instead asking the guard to allow him to leave the cell.  The last thing he saw was Göring standing there, hand outstretched.

Mr. Michel openly fielded questions from the crowd, including those asked by two young boys.  Through a welcoming smile that did nothing to hide the seriousness of his words, he admonished them: “Learn, young man.  Learn history.”

Despite all he had been through, he told us that he cannot live with hate.

When my opportunity came to talk to Mr. Michel and ask him to sign my copy of his book “Promises Kept,” I reminded him of his Hermann Göring story.  He looked up.  I asked, “Would you do me the honor of shaking my hand?”  He smiled broadly and gave me a hearty, warm handshake.

Tonight, I shook the hand of the man who refused to shake the hand of Hermann Göring.  Tonight, I shook the hand of Ernest W. Michel, Auschwitz Survivor #104995.

No related posts.