NDAA, the politicians Christmas present to you - a police state

There has been a lot already out there on the abortion of a bill, this years National Defense Authorization Act. Jennifer Abel blogs about it here.

With the stoke of a pen, the politicians have taken a diarrhea shit all over the constitution. The major rot in this bill is contained in Subtitle D--Counterterrorism, Section 1021 specifically the clause:

(a) "In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war."

Why is this so odious? To understand, the next section explains just who a "covered person" is.

1. A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
   
   
2. A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

If you read this there is NO EXEMPTION for U.S. citizens, INCLUDING those on U.S. soil. The really ugly part of this bill is contained in the next section.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

1. Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
   
   
2. Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
   
   
3. Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
   
   
4. Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Note, while section 1022 exempts U.S. citizens from military trials, and clause 4 above is for non citizens, the most odious, clause 1 CAN BE APPLIED TO U.S. CITIZENS! Read it again: "Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities".

So what this all boils down to is this gives the power to the government to indefinitely detain with no trial U.S. citizens accused of being a part of, or even "substantially supporting", "al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces". A modification to exempt U.S. citizens from indefinite detention was rejected by congress.

The forefathers in writing the constitution were VERY clear that citizens accused of crimes be granted a trial.
Here is the 5th 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 offense 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.

So the relevant section here is that citizens not in the armed forces are specifically not to be held by the government without a "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".

This alone should be enough to make this bill unconstitutional, but there is more.
Here is the 6th amendment

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but the text here is crystal clear, the government is required to give the accused a "speedy and public" trial, NOT hold them indefinitely.

Here is the 8th amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

While "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" was intended for sentencing at trials end, I would state that indefinite detention of U.S. citizens with no trial could be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment".

As I read about this monstrosity that the politicians shit forth I asked myself "who asked for this"? A lot of unpalatable anti freedom bills can be traced back to corporate interests. SOPA is a great example of this, it has a long list of corporate sponsorship. I dislike SOPA intensely, but I understand it's origins; corporations, probably headed by RIAA/MPAA MAFIAA groups poured money into congress to get a bill giving them and the government control over the internet when it comes to copyright issues.

But who is supporting an indefinite detention for U.S. citizens provision of the NDAA? You might think that government agencies may have been pushing for this, but that seems not to be the case, as the detention provision is opposed by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, White House Advisor for Counterterrorism John Brennan, and DOJ National Security Division head Lisa Monaco.

So who supports this? So far all I've been able to dig up are a small group of companies involved in defense contracts. Note the article does NOT say if any of these companies pushed for or support section 1021 of the NDAA, it is still NOT CLEAR to me where this came from. I'm going to field a guess on this, and I stand by it. I'm guessing that this did NOT emanate from corporations, but rather from a naked lust for power coming from the politicians. The constitution was specifically written to limit the power of government and many politicians don't like this at all. If section 1021 of this bill goes unchallenged, or worse, is upheld by the supreme court, the politicians will have gutted the constitution and replaced it with a police state.

Here is a list of the scum in the Senate who voted for this.
Here are the House members who voted for this.

Urban Survivalism

Is survivalism for you? I'd say just about 100% of liberals, as well as ANYONE living in the city would probably say no to that question. The word always brings to mind visions of a Mad Max post apocalyptic world with no law and insane people murdering everything they see.

Hardcore survivalists prepare for this by stockpiling years of food, guns, ammo and other supplies. They may live in a remote area, or have a hideaway shelter in such an area they think they can get to if they feel things are about to go bad.

This really isn't for most people, liberals HAAATE guns so they are not going to be able to protect anything they've stockpiled if things went sour, which they obviously feel is not likely, and probably isn't. For others it's just not practical; how are you going to get to work from your remote location? If you have a separate hideaway place it will be tough to get there post disaster. Nuke event, well you get about 8 minutes warning for that, so forget it, you ain't makin' it to the hideaway shelter. Even if you DO make it to that shelter if others have found it they aren't leaving and it's unlikely they will let you in, even if you show them the paperwork proving you are the owner.

So, for the above reasons, hardcore survivalism just does not suit Joe Sixpack, even conservative Joe Sixpack who may not be adverse to the concept. But people should think about survivalism. Not a cataclysm such as post nuke or complete societal collapse, which as I already mentioned most people CAN'T prepare for and is unlikely anyway. But they should prepare for another enemy.

Mother Nature. She IS a bitch. For weather disasters, even in the city you CAN practice some basic "urban survivalism". What got me thinking about this was a recent, freak snowstorm in October. It wasn't that bad, and the snow melted quickly but it DID take out the power in part of the Northeast U.S. Power companies in some areas were SLOW to restore power, some people didn't get it back for over a week. If you don't have gas this means no hot food for that time period. It means after a day or so, when what you had in the fridge is eaten or spoiled what you can eat is limited to what is in a can. Do you have enough canned food for a week? You are already cold, maybe even freezing, does frosty cold canned food sound yummy to you? This is where, for want of a better word, what I call "urban survivalism" comes in.

The goal here is not to be prepared for years of post apocalyptic misery, but to be prepared to survive for two weeks. So ya want hot food with no 'lectricity, waddaya do? The answer to that is pretty simple. Get a camping stove. It's a VERY cheap investment, I've seen them go from $10.00 to $40 bucks. I'm sure you can pay more, but part of my urban survival philosophy is NOT breaking your bank account. The stove not only allows you to heat up canned food, but to prepare freeze dried food like ramen, knorr etc, stuff that does NOT take up a lot of space, is cheap, and lasts forever. Hot coco powder isn't a bad thing to have either.

UPDATED info - 10/19/2022
After doing more research at a later date I found out that the gas camping stoves are a bad idea, as they can cause co2, and/or fume issues. I didn't find any other posts about "flareups" from alcohol stoves, so those are OK. Conclusion, stick with alcohol or Sterno for indoor emergency stoves.

DEPRECIATED
There may be more(I'm NOT an expert on this, do your OWN research!!!) but from my research there seem to be three basic types. Alcohol, propane/butane and fuel cans(sterno). From what I read I DO NOT recommend the alcohol, as they do NOT work when it gets too cold, and a reviewer wrote about a "flareup" if you vary the height of your cooking utensil above it. The goal here is hot food, NOT burning your place down!!

I'm not sure which of the remaining two, propane/butane or fuel cans is better, like I said before I'm NOT an expert. The advantage of the gas units is they burn hotter, reviews state most seem to take only a few minutes to boil water. If you get one of these be sure to get the RIGHT fuel bottle, most of them seem to use a squat gas cannister that does NOT have the same threads as the small propane bottles you see sold everywhere.

I bought this stove which uses fuel cans(sterno). I opted for this because I like the absolute simplicity. No mechanism to fiddle with, possibly break, throw a match into the fuel can and you are ready to go. A reviewer wrote that the design has "been around since the 30's" so it has certainly withstood the test of time. It came well reviewed overall. I'm not saying it's better than the butane/propane stoves, if you like those buy one. It is certainly better than NO stove when the power goes out and you don't have gas. (note, sometimes gas lines DO break, so even if you have gas the $20 - $50 bucks a camping stove will cost won't break you).

Whatever stove you buy, make sure you have enough fuel for it to cook 2 meals a day for two weeks. Don't assume you can "buy more" as panic buyers during weather disasters have been known to clean stores out. The same goes for food, make sure you have two weeks worth. It doesn't have to be expensive, cheap ramen and knorr freeze dried stuff will keep you going, throw in some cans of chili, stew, and whatever else appeals to you to break it up.

Water, water WATER, without it you will shrivel up and die, not to mention NOT being able to use any of that freeze dried food I advised you to buy. Hopefully it won't happen, but sometimes during a weather event water pipes burst. Someone in a small apartment doesn't have the space to keep 5 gallons of water on hand regularly, but if you KNOW a storm is coming then fill up some gallon jugs. I don't know if it's practical to keep two weeks worth, this may be an item you will wind up having to scrounge for if the pipes don't get fixed soon enough, hopefully not. In any event, store up as much as you can when you hear the shit is about to go down.

Blankies!!!! Bad shit tends to happen in winter, where in much of the country it's FREEZING COLD. What you have with the heat on probably will NOT be enough with no heat. Can't go wrong with some extra wool blankets and or comforters, a sleeping bag rated for extreme cold may even be a better idea if you have the space for it. Have to admit I'm not well prepared in this area. Don't be me.

No power = no light, so of course be sure to have a decent supply of stuff people DO think of, batteries, slow burning candles, matches, etc..

Well, can't think of anything else, if I missed anything feel free to add it in a comment.

mic check - shut the FUCK up you assholes

There is a new form of protest called a "mic check". How it works is a crowd of people disrupt a speech by yelling "mic check" and then delivering a speech of their own, drowning out the original speaker. You can see this in action here.

This is a cheap and dirty way for a group to get the media to report on their point, as of course they only do this when cameras are rolling. I love protest. I'm a huge fan of the 60's and the anti Vietnam and pro civil rights demonstrations that went on back then.

So why then, as a fan of protest and dissent, do I find this form so repellent? Because if you observe what is going on, if you THINK about it, what these protesters are REALLY doing is engaging in censorship. They are denying a persons 1st amendment right of free speech in order to make their own. They no doubt feel cute and slick, as not only are they getting their own speech out to the media, they are denying the speech of someone they don't like.

I find this behavior despicable and repulsive. Censorship is the OPPOSITE of freedom no matter what party puts it to use. In a free society ALL parties MUST be allowed to speak. If the speaker is unpopular no one is required to listen to them, although it is a good idea to listen to people you disagree with, NOT shout them down, as it gives you a more solid foundation to argue against them.

The internet is the greatest medium of free speech ever. That is what needs to be used to propagate dissenting views. Anyone can stand up and be an asshole disrupting a speech, it's NOT impressive and garners little sympathy for a cause. No matter what the cause is, the 1st amendment doesn't just apply to you, it applies to everyone.

Voltaire: "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

To the Occupy movement - wake up and smell the constitution

I like the concept of the Occupy movement. It started in NYC as Occupy Wall St., the purpose to send a message to the rich and politicians that enough is enough. No more bailouts for "too big to fail" banks and insurance companies with tax money, end corporate welfare, bring back Glass-Steagall, maybe even try to get the ball rolling on a REAL recovery, not a "jobless" recovery where people are still not working while the rich get fatter and fatter.

I think both the original Occupy Wall street movement in NYC and Occupy Boston have done a good job illustrating this. Despite a persistent lack of coverage from the mainstream media the independent media got the word out, thanks to the www and the blogosphere. Instead of just blowing over, which the mainstream media and their corporate masters had hoped, the movement gained popularity and grew. Now many cities have occupy movements within them.

But, something happened on the way to the forum. Some, not all, but some of the Occupy movement groups have gotten downright nasty to the very people who are spreading their message across the country and world.
Some of the Occupy movement groups that have shown hostility to the media(independent and/or mainstream) are:
Occupy DC x 2
Occupy Miami
Occupy Oakland - a mention of yet ANOTHER Occupy Miami incident also here. Annnnd again.
Occupy Portland
Occupy San Diego
Occupy LA Scroll down to bottom.

Robert Lyles in the news report about Occupy Oakland did a great job pointing out the hypocrisy of the assholes from Occupy Oakland, one of whom even allowed his dog to assault a reporter.
Sara Mizner, who asked reporters point cameras toward city hall and not toward the tents was asked this: "Are you picking and choosing which constitutional rights to uphold?"
This was her answer:"Right now in this moment it was the safest decision that we felt that we could make."
I'd really like to know how reporters are threatening their safety. Not that it matters, as the constitution doesn't suddenly lose effect because the Occupy Oakland douche bags feel "unsafe".
Update - more BS from the pretentious fucks at Occupy Oakland.
Update2 - Ahahahahahahaha! Karma at work here, suck it down BITCHES!

None of these people, and justifiable so, like the cops trying to interfere with their constitutional rights. So why do they turn into instant assholes as soon as they see a camera? They are in a public place, where they have NO expectation of privacy and the constitution is VERY clear about the freedom of the press.

Seriously, if you want to conduct secret meetings, rent a hall someplace. Then you can control who gets in and what kind of behavior is allowed. Otherwise STFU and stop treading on other peoples constitutional rights while insisting everyone respects yours.

Note: Since I wrote this article in October the number of unpleasant and sometimes violent incidences at some of the Occupy locations, ESPECIALLY Occupy Oakland have been increasing. Carlos Miller, owner of the (now deceased)blog "Photography is Not a Crime" has done an excellent job of documenting this, most of my links are from him. While most of the people in the Occupy movement ARE peaceful, a MAJOR beef I have is the FAILURE of the majority of peaceful people there to push the assholes out of the movement. This CAN be done Sara Robinson explains how

The object is not to shame or blame. Instead, it’s like an intervention. You simply point out what you have seen and how it affects you. The person is given a clear choice: make some very specific changes in their behavior, or else leave.

This requires some pre-organization. You need three to five spokespeople to moderate the session (usually as a tag team) and do most of the talking. Everybody else simply stands in a circle around the offender, watching silently, looking strong and determined. The spokespeople make factual “we” statements that reflect the observations of the group. “We have seen you using drugs inside Occupied space. We are concerned that this hurts our movement. We are asking you to either stop, or leave.”

When the person tries to make excuses (and one of the most annoying attributes of chronic assholes is they’re usually skilled excuse-makers as well), then other members of the group can speak up — always with “I” messages. “I saw you smoking a joint with X and Y under tree Z this morning. We’re all worried about the cops here, and we think you’re putting our movement in danger. We are asking you to leave.” Every statement needs to end with that demand — “We are asking you to either stop, or else leave and not come back.” No matter what the troublemaker says, the response must always be brought back to this bottom line.

Replace "smoking weed" with "Throwing paint at cops, smashing windows, and threatening media people" and you get the idea of who really needs to be pushed out of the occupy movement.

I don't buy the "31%" willing to commit violence figure, but this rap sheet shows that the movement has a LOT of work to do cleaning the shitheads out of it.

The medical profession and tech.

One thing I have noticed is that while the medical profession is quick to adopt the latest medical gadget they tend to remain in the stone age when it comes to computers and digital devices. Just think about the now common digital camera. It cost NOTHING to take a picture with one yet doctors are NOT using them to take pictures of patients injuries.

You would think in some circumstances this would be an invaluable tool, as the picture could be added to the patients medical record. With a ruler next to it in the picture it would also be easy to see if the injury has gotten bigger or not. Changes, like whether the injury has gotten more red, purple, whatever could also be observed over time in a succession of pictures.

I can understand in the days of film cameras this not being done as development is both time consuming and costly but both of those factors are eliminated with digicams.

Government debt

Just go here. I don't need to add anything.
Link is now dead but this pic sums it up...

You don't own anything

Imagine going to a school with two bullies. Two BIG, merciless bullies. They have no scruples. If they like your lunch, they take it. If they like your jewelry, they take it. If they want the shirt off your back, they will yank it off you. You can try going to school authorities, but the bullies retaliate by delivering punishing beatings and taking even more of your stuff while the glacially slow school justice system drags on. Talking to the principle doesn't work, nor does suspension. They merely catch you on the way home and beat you up then. Sound like a shitty situation to be in? Well guess what, you ARE in it.

The two bullies are big corporations and the government. And if you have what they want they are going to take it away from you. Of the two, the bigger, badder bully is the government. It already takes your lunch money every paycheck in the form of taxes.

Some people love taxes. But no one on the receiving end loves asset forfeiture. This is cute government legal tactic where the property is declared as being acquired by illegal means(usually drug sales) and the government takes it. The government is NOT required to prosecute the property owner, and the owner is put in the position where he/she has to take the government to court to get his property back.

Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime.

Needless to say, asset forfeiture has become a VERY popular tool of government bully.

A tool used by both government and corporate bullies to separate you from your property is eminent domain. This used to be only for use by government, and limited to what was deemed "the greater public good", which usually meant government could only take your property for public works projects such as hydroelectric power dams and roads. Corporate bully didn't like being left out of this, LOUDLY shouted "ME TOO!!" and thanks to the Kelo decision by the supreme court he got his wish! So now Walmart or any other big corporation can use eminent domain to take your house. All they have to do is prove they can generate more tax revenue than you do, which of course, they can.

"I've got a web site! And golly gee, I own a domain with my VERY own name"!

No you don't. Just like a rug, that too can get yanked out from under you by either government or corporate bully. In this case, even when government bully takes it, it's at the instigation of corporate bully.

It works like this. Corporate bully goes to government bully, hands wringing, head hung low, tears beginning to well up in his sad, wide round eyes. "Government bully, I need your help, those bad old pirates are giving away my copyrighted material on their web site!" Now copyright infringement is a CIVIL matter, so in this case government bully should have told corporate bully to man up and deal with it himself, but government bully LOVES corporate bully, so instead had ICE seize over 80 internet domains.

Corporate bully grows a pair when he wants your web domain for himself. "How does this happen"; you ask? Well lets say Joe Sixpack gets his very own web site, and buys the domain name joesixpack.com. It's his family web site and he's had it for 15 years. Then along comes corporate bully, in the form of a multimillion dollar beer company named, not surprisingly, Joe Sixpack™. They want a web site but OOOOOPS!, it's taken already. They make Joe Sixpack the person a crappy offer, which he refuses.

"Oh ho", says corporate bully Joe Sixpack™, and accuses Joe Sixpack of cybersquatting, using that as an excuse to drag Joe Sixpack into court and have the judge force him to hand the domain over to Joe Sixpack™. Even with no real legal basis corporate bully has a LOT of money and can jerk Joe Sixpack through the court system, costing him a LOT of money. Money, most likely, he doesn't have. An example of this kind of bad behavior by corporate bully can be found here. Although in this case apparently Mr. Uzi Nissan had enough money to deal with the court system, so for once corporate bully Nissan™ had to eat shit. Most people however DO NOT have the money it takes to battle it out all the way to the supreme court and will wind up losing their domain name, which they paid for in good faith.

So there you have it, between government bully and corporate bully you don't own a thing, not even the shirt on your back. If government bully claims it was purchased with drug money or you owe taxes, he'll take that too.

Update! Just found out in some states you don't even own the RAIN that falls off your roof. So who does? Our old friend, government bully. Next they'll claim the sweat off your back belongs to the government too.

Update - 2023
Surprised it took me so long to add this. One more thing you don't own is your house. You rent that from government bully. Don't believe me? Government bully calls his rent "property tax" and if you don't pay the rent, you lose your home. When you have to pay someone money in order to live somewhere or you are forced to leave, that is not ownership. You are renting that property.