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.

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.

So now what?

Yesterday, the American voting public showed up to express themselves in record numbers. As a result, Election 2010 has turned out to be the largest Congressional upset since World War II, with results exceeding the auto-erotic expectations of even the most rabid Fox News GOP sycophant.

Last night, incumbents lost big.  The question that sits like a rock in my mind, however, is:  Who is going to lose next?  More importantly, when is the population of the United States, as a whole, going to start winning?

So-called “Tea Party” candidates both won and lost, yet claim this as the beginning of a “new era” in GOP politics.  “Tea Party” wins in some earlier Senate nomination races actually lead to GOP losses in those same races, ultimately directly resulting in the GOP failing to claim a majority in the Senate.  I would seem that, in a few cases, philosophy won out over old-school party loyalty.  Is this a good thing?  Only history will tell.

Republicans claim this is a repudiation of the sitting President (mid-term elections always are) and his policies.  Some made conciliatory remarks to “Tea Party” members.  How will this experience, coupled with the past 4 years, inform and moderate how they choose to do business?  Only history will tell.

The President earlier suggested that this sort of outcome would merely be the result of fear and anger on the part of his “enemies.”  Others have opined that this election was more about an inspired Republican turn out versus an uninspired Democrat turn out.  What does this mean for President Obama’s future?  Only history will tell.

And what of the Independents who helped carry Barack Obama to the Presidency 2 long years ago?  It would seem that many, if not most, of them have defected.  I, myself, am a registered Independent.  I always keep my votes secret, but without giving anything away, suffice it to say that I cast votes for Republicans, a Democrat, and several Libertarian candidates.  You might even be surprised at how I voted on Arizona’s Proposition 203.

Finally, in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, which is heavily Hispanic, incumbent Congressman Raúl Grijalva, famous in AZ for his nationwide call for a boycott against Arizona over SB1070, appears (at press time) to have quite literally eked out a narrow victory.  His win itself seems somewhat less significant than the fact that (as of this moment) he only won by a statistical handful of votes in a district that should have, by common Pop Culture wisdom, been his for the taking.  What does this say?

This morning, an acquaintance shared something so profound and dead-on, I wish I had written it, myself:

“If you want the state to intervene overseas, you’re a conservative.  If you want the state to intervene domestically, you’re a liberal.  If you want both, you’re “middle of the road.”  If you just want to be left the hell alone by this insanity, you’re some kind of a dangerous radical.” — Adam Muntner

Since Adam said it all, I have nothing left to say.

No related posts.

Image by Reuters

President Obama wants voters to remember that “GOP policies failed to prevent the recession.”

What he doesn’t seem to grasp is that We, The People, do remember.

We remember that Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi became Speaker-elect on November 16, 2006 and assumed power on January 3, 2007 at the start of the 110th Congress.  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in December 2007.

We, The People, remember.

Respectfully, Mr. President, We, The People, see clearly that your suggestion that Republicans were “behind the wheel” when the metaphorical car was metaphorically driven off the metaphorical road is simplistic at best and displays either your lack of depth or your level of disdain for Us.  Your suggestion that Republicans “gotta sit in the back,” was insulting, dismissive, and, had it been made by a white Republican toward your party, well… we all know how that might’ve ended.  Respectfully, Mr. President, Pelosi Democrats were “behind the wheel,” as you so Presidentially put it.

As eloquent an orator as you are, Mr. President, you cannot undo or change history with a stroke of your verbal pen.

Was there any GOP-sponsored legislation in place that lead to the recession?  Almost certainly.  But if we want to play the way-back game, we can also bring up that it was President Jimmy Carter who signed into law the Community Reinvestment Act, which required lending institutions to give home loans to people they knew would never be able to pay them back… all in the name of being “fair” to people who wanted to own a home despite their inability to financially support that choice.  We can also bring up that it was President Clinton’s asking for changes in the law in order to “deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities” that lead directly to the recent housing market crash.  How far back do we want to go?  Even a “CSI” fanboy can see that there is blood on everyone’s hands at this crime scene.

Because it’s apparently easier for a We, The Brain-Dead People, to understand, Pop Culture assigns all successes and failures to the Presidential figurehead, depending on what is popular at the time.  GWB’s war in Iraq, for instance, proved to be very unpopular.  But how often are the names of the Democratic members of the Congress and Senate who voted to support it, then later used it as political ammunition against him, mentioned?

I, personally, am sick of both the Democrats and the Republicans.  I’ve even seen some rename them to Democans and Republicrats, suggesting there is really little difference between the two (other than to whom and how they pander).  I’m sick of the Democrats telling me that I must feel guilty for something that isn’t my fault and that my money really belongs to someone else.  I’m sick of the Republicans telling me that the only thing scarier than a raghead is a gay raghead who wants to get married and join the military.  Stop it.  You sound like children.

Mostly, I’m sick of both sides thinking they are smart enough to manipulate me without me catching on.  Stop trying to use fear and guilt as weapons.  Not only is it transparent and ineffective, but every time you try to foist that upon me, I have that much less respect for you.

This is why I’m a registered Independent.  Do we need a 3rd party?  No, I don’t think so.  I think we need at least 5 parties to make sure that no one extreme arm of any extant party (I’m talking to you, D’s and R’s) can seize power easily.  I also think it should be illegal for anyone who has ever been a lawyer or even earned a JD degree to ever serve in the Congress.  This is, perhaps, the most dangerous, incestuous special interest group in the federal government, voting on laws that only one of their own can interpret, preserving their own job security and power.  And don’t get me started on term limits…

But I digress.

What has been swept under the cognitive rug in this case is that it is the Congress which controls the purse strings and sets the legislative agenda.  The President can make suggestions, but unless he has Chicago-style thugs out threatening to break kneecaps, he can’t force the Congress to do anything.  That’s the idea of co-equal branches.

I’m not suggesting that the GOP would’ve hypothetically done any better.  But I am suggesting that, should We, The People hand them the baton tomorrow, they had better not screw it up or they’re finished.  I do find it funny, though, that the GOP has been dubbed “The Party of NO” as though this were a pejorative.  Is it wrong to say “no” to a syringe full of poison?

Should the GOP take control of the House tomorrow as is being predicted, this is what I suggest the new Speaker-elect say:  “Mr. President:  We won.  Your agenda is finished.  Starting on the 1st day of the 112th Congress, we begin with The People’s business of undoing the harm that you and our predecessors have done to America.”

I know this won’t happen for two reasons:  Nobody has the balls to say it, but more importantly, nobody has the balls to actually do it.

I, for one, say “bring on the gridlock.”  Political in-fighting in Washington is good for all of us.  If you don’t believe me, watch how the economy and Stock Market respond to a (predicted) GOP victory.  The economy and market are always stronger when no one party is in control of both branches.

Tomorrow, November 2nd, 2010, please go out and vote your conscience, whomever you support.  But please… make sure your vote is informed.  November 3rd is too late.

No related posts.

It’s 2010: Enter the vote.  Two of your favorite Social Media tools have set up live tracking to cover the upcoming election in the United States.  The best part?  YOU are the reporters.

• Twitter:  http://blog.twittervotereport.com/
• Foursquare:  http://elections.foursquare.com/

If you know of any other sources for election-related information, especially live feeds that can be viewed through Social Media tools, please share them in the comments section.

And, if you’re a Foursquare user, check in at your polling place on election day, and receive a slick new voting badge!  Hey… free electoral nerd cred!

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.