The BIG LIE about CU is REVEALED

I have grown increasingly frustrated with the deliberate ignorance and BIG LIe that is the argument against the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision. It time that I stop trying to educate individually, rather to take a broader approach with this blog. First let me state that I am no ideologue, I am a life long Republican, but rarely vote for a Republican unless they are deemed by ME as being worthy of my vote which has become a rare occurrence to say the least. I am a center-right voter. What was CU all about? A little history. The McCain/Feingold campaign reform law place limitations on the amount of money a person or corporation could spend on an individual candidate or party. When it came to issue ads, individuals were allowed to spend every dime they had. An issue ad is one that CANNOT be coordinated with any candidate or party. This is an ad that as an individual you want to throw your support to a candidate or party as a private person. PAC's, which are corporations were, by law, limited in their ability to create an issue ad as there was a financial limit to what they could spend. What CU was about was a PAC, which is a corporation created an infomercial attacking then candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC cried foul as the CU PAC's broke the law by over spending. CU objected and filed suit claiming an infringement of 1st amendment rights of the people who were part of that PAC, a corporation. The Supreme Court agreed. So what was the effect of CU on elections? Now some claim that it means the Koch's and Adelson's of the country were now free to 'buy' an election. This is just not so. These individuals could have always spent unlimited amounts on issue ads PRIOR to CU. So let us put that one to rest. CU had nothing to do with individual's right to spend unlimited amounts of money on issue ads. So lets look at the effect of CU on the last election...Karl Rove's PAC (a corporation)spent $125M to defeat Mr. Obama and install Mr. Romney as President. How did that work out for them? Adelson spent a like amount as an individual for the same purpose and what was that result? So here you have $250 MILLION spent to 'buy' an election and what happened? Complete and total failure. So how can the CU ruling be a good thing? Here is a hypothetical for you to consider. Prior to CU, if David Koch wanted to create an issue ad supporting an anti-environment candidate and the Sierra Club (a corporation) wanted create their own ad, they were limited financially. They could never match Koch's money legally. AFTER CU the Sierra Club can fight him on equal footing. The playing field is leveled. Now this is but one example. Now for those of you who think in terms of say, Walmart being a corporation, which it is and they decide to support some extremist candidate or cause, it would be corporate suicide. First, the board of directors would have to approve the expenditure. Now, do you really think Walmart is going to put their stock price in jeopardy by doing something so stupid? No, they won't. The stockholders would never stand for it. Sure, they may not be known by the FEC, but the SEC would know they spent that money. Look, corporations have lobbyists who are much more effective for the money spent. Why bother with a crapshoot like an election?

I don't like Romney..but

The revelations of the past few days has shed more light on Mr. Romney. I will admit that I don't like the guy for a variety of reasons.

Tonight's 'interviews' only tend to prove beyond any doubt that this man has his secrets, he will justify everything and is in denial over his past statements regarding Bain. There is no doubt now that he and his campaign staff have decided to play the deflection game because if he exposed the truth, the damage would be worse than not admitting to what he actually did. As long as there is no definitive proof, a smoking gun other than what we already know, he can deny anything and everything and accuse others of speculating.

The question we all must ask ourselves is simply this. Given the secrecy of his past and his unwillingness to produce his tax returns, this should give us pause. Can we trust this man with the fate of 330 million people? Are his other qualifications and other possible intangibles overpowering enough to over ride common sense? I think not. He may claim to know how to fix the economy based upon his business experience, but his whole experience is making a profit. Not job creation, but creating wealth. This is not the President's job, to create wealth. This is all he knows. Government is not a business. Government cannot be run like a business. Imagine 535 members of a board of directors and him trying to accomplish what HE wants. This is not the way the real world works.

The biggest concern we have is simple. Given his propensity for going with the flow means he will succumb to the pressures of the Tea Baggers, just like Mr. Boehner. This is his pattern. To this day, he will flip flop on any subject. Look what happened with the penalty/tax issue of just last week. His whole Presidency will be just like this. He will go with the flow for political expediency.

Is this really the man we want in the White House?

President Romney's first week in office....

The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years. 


As a recap, what has happened in the last week. 


The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things. 


A 20% increase in the defense budget. 


The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration. 


Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level. 


The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states. 


Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources. 


As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed. 


Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections. 


To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated. 


The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue. 


There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.


The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President. 


And this is just the beginning.......

Is the Occupy movement doomed?

The Occupy movement is the latest rant to come to not only America, but it seems the world. We have seen this all before, we have just forgotten or fail to recognize it for what it is. The Occupy movement is nothing more than a Neo-Marxist operation. The only difference between then and now is that they have no central leader. Not having a voice in the guise of a charismatic leader is what will doom them. Oh, I know, there are those who say it's not Marxist or Communist or Socialist at all. Maybe this is a hint...

      

 

Of course, there are no similarities at all. Marx called the working class, the Proletariat. In the Soviet Union, they had the Party Congress, where the Proletariat voted on issues, the Occupy has the General Assembly, where the Proletariat 'votes' on issues.

Lets look at some parts of the Soviet Constitution....

The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.


Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.


Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves: For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.


The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.


Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.


The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.


The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.


 It is clear that the Soviets took the throw the baby out with the bath water approach to change. One thing is clear from both the Marxist and Occupy movement is the concept of 'exploitation of man by man'. This is the basis for Marxism and the Occupy movement, the system we have today is so flawed that only drastic change will do. 


The same thing happened in Cuba, the lack of a middle class, the gulf between rich and poor so wide. 


We should be wary of the Occupy movement, we should also be on the look out for an emerging leader who will bring all the different assemblies together to form a Central Committee. Only then will their power be consolidated and we should have plenty to worry about. 

Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?

For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".

There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's. 


As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.

On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven. 


For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe. 


Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.

Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact. 


Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!

How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?


Now for some political crap. 


Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%. 


Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill. 


Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.


Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists. 


Repeal Obamacare.


No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills. 


Same sex marriage. 


Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?

Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.


False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion. 


I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe. 

After Iowa

The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.

If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.

It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.

What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?

Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?

So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.

As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.

The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.

I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?

Concentration Camps being built in the US as we speak.

For the last few weeks we have been told that the Defense Authorization Bill includes a section which allows for the detention of American citizens, without charge, due process and habeas corpus. I have been frustrated to no end because I have actually read the bill and the section in question and by any rational standard, there is no such language, in simple fact, does just the opposite. For simplicity sake, I will provide here the actual text of the relevant sections AND the anchor law in effect by which sets the standard for ANY detention.


Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.

The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.


As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(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) 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.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(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.

(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.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) 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.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(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.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

 Here is public law 107-40 which serves as the anchor for this section.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS

---

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Second Amendment Solution?

I wish to offer my personal condolences to those who were shot or killed today and their families and friends at the Tucson Massacre.

I felt, while it is fresh in our minds and hearts, I would say a few words.

Throughout the previous political campaign, there were references, veiled and direct to what was coined, the 'Second Amendment Solution'. There were political ads which showed the use of firearms, suggesting that if you own a gun you were somehow superior to another candidate, more in tune with how the voters feel. I ask you, right now, how do you feel the a Congressman, a Federal Judge, a 9 year old child and at least 7 others, killing at least 5 were gunned down by an obviously crazed individual. This is what a Second Amendment Solution looks and feels like. It's not funny, or a cute tag line someone can use.

Five people are dead in Tucson because someone exercised their own Second Amendment Solution. How do you feel? I am sick and disgusted that this sort of thing happened in our country. Anyone, politicians and supporters included who supported the notion of a Second Amendment Solution, even in joking may very well have blood on their hands. The psycho's out there, who have 'issues' with our government and politicians may very well be given the idea from all the press that came out over these statements. Crazies can be influenced by these statements. Because they are crazy, they show no remorse or conscience because as a crazy, they believe in the righteousness of their cause. When you have a politician speaking in those terms it may validate the cause or give impetus to the act.

Rational people, who may have a similar complaint may indeed agree, but actually stop short of doing anything such as this because, well in the end they know it's wrong. Of course it won't stop them from talking trash. Now I wonder, how do they feel about saying such things? Are they human enough to admit that maybe saying such things is a bit too extreme?

I think, at the very least, those who subscribed to this nonsense admit, well this is not a solution at all. Certainly not an American solution.

Don't forget, there are more crazies where this guy came from.

I hope as a nation, we can learn from this. Words can hurt or cause others to hurt. This is not a video game American, this is real people, blood and yes, tears.

The Second Amendment Solution is no answer to ANYTHING when it comes to a massacre of innocents and people doing their jobs and going about their lives.

Addendum 01/09/11

The last paragraph from the statement from Kelly's campaign says it all. No remorse, no remote possibility of responsibility;

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.

"I don't see the connection," between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday's shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman. "I don't know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don't see the connection."

They don't get it. Just because you 'don't see the connection', does not mean your vitriolic rhetoric did not empower someone to take matters into their own hands. Why not admit that maybe, in hindsight the judgement to use weapons in a campaign to help 'oust' a candidate might not have been the smartest thing to do? The weaponizing of a campaign fundraiser, especially with Second Amendment Solutions being thrown about might, just might send the wrong message to the less educated and clearly insane.

Secession and Nullification

Chris Matthews and MSNBC is on a rant again regarding secession and nullification. This is getting old. The Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865. Revisionists would have you believe that this war was fought specifically over the issue of slavery. The latest trigger point was the Sesquicentennial Celebration in South Carolina being held. Negro groups and left wing media are screaming about how disgraceful celebrating a political act instituted by the South Carolina Legislature and 6 other Southern States. Disgraceful? So should we also consider celebrating the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain as disgraceful? Of course not. Both were political acts, both instituted by legal bodies and for essentially similar reasons. The parliament in England was dictating policy and law from London even with a colonial representative. The guiding force in London was for the glory of the empire, the rights of the colonials were of secondary importance. The southern states felt then that they were being pushed around by Washington and their needs and right were being neglected. As long as there was balance in the Senate, the southern states were content. Have we forgotten the Missouri Compromise? For every free state entering the Union, there would be a slave state. There was balance. The states decided if they wanted to be free or slave. Keep in mind, until the amended 13th Amendment was approved in December 1865. Did I say amended? Yes I did.

What was the original 13th Amendment signed by President Buchanan and later approved of by Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural address in 1861?

"The Corwin Amendment was passed by the House on March 1, 1861 and the Senate on March 3, 1861. President Buchanan signed it the same day, which was also his last full day in office; it was later ratified by three states: Ohio, Maryland and Illinois.[23] This proposed amendment would have forbidden the adoption any constitutional amendment that would have abolished or restricted slavery, or permitted the Congress to do so. This proposal was an unsuccessful attempt to convince the Southern states not to secede from the Union."

"Abraham Lincoln, in his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, specifically referenced the Corwin Amendment: "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution...has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."".

Even Abraham Lincoln approved of a constitutional amendment to forbid abolishment of slavery in the United States, he said so himself to the nation!! Lincoln was a gradualist, he believed as the South did, it was only a matter of time before slavery died on it's own.

Now, lets look at the numbers. It take, by the constitution 60% of the states to approve such amendment, 3 NORTHERN states had already approved it. Take the 11 Southern states which seceded that would bring the number to 14 states. There were as of 1860, 33 states. 20 would be needed for ratification, so only 6 more would be needed. Now, given the fact that slave labor meant that raw materials, such as cotton made US made items competitive, it is not beyond the realm of possibility the manufacturing states would have voted for the amendment, in fact to keep Negroes in the South would have been yet another reason to vote for it. Before the matter could be taken up by the other Northern states, the Civil War had begun.

Anyway, to suggest that slavery was the ONLY issue seems to be a red herring since there was a constitutional amendment on the table and only 6 more votes would be needed to ratify. Believe it or not, that amendment is still considered pending and could be approved.

Now, lets take a look at slavery in itself until December 1865. Whether we want to admit it or not, slavery was legal in the United States. Slaves were an asset, a piece of property, owned by a slave owner. Think of a slave as a car, you put gas in the tank, air in the tires, wash and wax it. They were not considered by anyone at the time as human beings, from a practical standpoint. The Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic plan to foster a slave revolt in the South. It also denied slave owners due process for compensation for their loss of property. Imagine today the Federal government seizing your home or property and just giving it away without compensation. There would be such an uproar, possibly rebellion.

The end of the Civil War brought an Army of Occupation into the Southern states. Not only did the South lose the war, but they were subjected to an army of occupation, military control of their lives. Their homes destroyed, property seized by legal and illegal means. For 10 years the South suffered the indignation of being an occupied land. Everything they fought for, states rights was destroyed. Millions of Negroes were free to roam the countryside, North and South. Homeless and jobless they were, just as the whites who were left alive. The Federal government crammed the Negro down the throats of all of America, promising 40 acres and a mule. So here you have it, a war which was lost, an army of occupation, homes lost a way of living destroyed and who was promised 40 acres and a mule? Is it any wonder, given the times that there would not be some sort of backlash?

Lets fast forward to today for a moment. To illustrate my point as to relevance, look at the immigration debate regarding illegals. Do we not take issue with illegals taking over our jobs, even though we would not be caught dead doing them? These illegals are taking resources only Americans should have. There is a belief that they get free medical care, food stamps and welfare. Their children infest our schools for free..the list goes on and on. Now, given the situation today, is it so far fetched to believe that the South and the North felt the same way? Of course they did. The record is clear on this point. I wonder, had the North lost the war and was occupied by the Confederate Army, there would not have been backlash as well. My guess is that there would have not been such a thing. The South was never interested in occupying the North, they just wanted to be left alone.

So, had the 13th Amendment been approved and had the South not seceded, what then? Would we have a Negro President today? Would we have Civil Rights? With all the bloodshed of patriots on both sides, maybe in the long run it was worth it.

As for secession. I has been said that the issue of secession was settled on the battlefield, not in the courts. This is only half true. How can secession be illegal if there is no law against it? The constitution refers to creating and allowing states in, not the reverse.

As I recall, the 10th Amendment covers this issue, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". In other words, any power not specifically delegated by the constitution belongs to the states. There is no power to allow for secession or disallow it, therefore secession should be legal.

A later court ruling after the Civil War states this regarding secession in Texas v. White, "There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.". This case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1869. Apparently there are two legal means for a state to leave the Union, one is by revolution (interesting choice of words) or consent of the states, which may suggest a reverse dissolution of admittance to the union. So this means that had the Southern states declared their own independence, much like the American Declaration of Independence, it would have been legal? Methinks it's a matter of semantics.

As for states rights? Abraham Lincoln ordered Federal troops to Annapolis, MD to prevent Maryland from voting for secession. Illinois, Lincoln's adopted state (he was from Kentucky), by one vote almost voted for secession.

The rationale of states rights is not the same as it was back then. Today with so much Federal money flowing into the states, the Feds keep them in line, compelling them to adopt laws and regulations in line with Federal law or they threaten to cut off the money to that state. The answer to this dilemma is simple, stop taking the money. No, railing against Federal interference makes for great political theater. The states want the money without any rules or regulations. Some states want the Feds to write them a blank check without any strings attached. That will never happen.

It's like raising a teenager who complains about the rules of the house or a curfew, or who can be their friends. You tell them, when you are living under my roof, you do what I say. When you go out on your own, you can do whatever you want.

I say, if any state wants to leave, leave. Lets stop this nonsense about slavery and civil rights. We cannot go back. So lets move forward. If you want to go it alone, then go, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Recess Appointments

Before our Republic friends try to make issue of the recess appointments OUR President has made, may I refer them to Article 2 of the US Constitution, Section 2, "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.".

The President at his/her discretion has a constitutional obligation as they see fit to fill vacancies. In their judgment they may do so during a recess as authorized specifically in the US Constitution. Whine as the Republic party may, this is completely within the obligation and authorization within the constitution.