The Rise of the U.S.S.A.

While the rest of us were busy preparing for the holidays, Congress was busy trampling on our freedoms and torching the Bill of Rights.  How did they do this, you ask?  A little publicized piece of legislation known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.  It allows the U.S. military to pursue and indefinitely detain suspected terrorists on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens.  The pursuit of terror suspects in America was previously the sole domain of the CIA and FBI.  The bill passed the House and the Senate but was threatened to be vetoed by the White House.  That threat was lifted when some language was changed and a small provision was added.  That provision gives the President, rather than the Secretary of Defense, the authority to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement and also gives the President the discretion in implementing the new provisions. In plain English, it gives the President the authority to determine who will be placed in military custody and who will go to a civilian jail.

So let me get this straight; President Obama was going to veto this until he was given the power to determine who gets put into military custody and who goes to a regular jail?  He gets to determine who is so great a threat that they need to be locked away at Guantanamo Bay? Hmmm.  Sounds very concentration/internment camp-like to me.  Let's not forget that it was under our own President, F.D.R., that U.S. citizens of Japanese descent were placed in camps out of fear they may be "enemies of the state."  Now this same power is in Obama's hands, as well as the hands of whomever succeeds him as President.  Obama, after signing this into law, issued a signing statement that he would not use this authority to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.  Well, sure. After all, Obama keeps his promises, right?  Bipartisanship? Transparency? Unemployment no higher than 8%?  I think you get the point.  Furthermore, signing statements are meaningless.  The President has no legal obligation to uphold anything in a signing statement.  What makes this bill even more frightening is the ease with which it passed the Republican-controlled House and the Democrat-controlled Senate.  These two bodies couldn't agree on a lunch date yet THIS passes with flying colors? The bill passed the Senate with an 86-13 vote.  The 13 "no" votes? This may surprise you:  6 Republicans, 6 Democrats, and 1 Independent.  This simply furthers my assertion that the "D" and "R" mean absolutely nothing.  Two of the Democrats were Dick Durbin of Illinois and Al Franken of Minnesota, 2 of the most liberal politicians you will find.  The Republican nays included Rand Paul of Kentucky and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, 2 of the most vocal small government advocates in D.C.  The Independent was Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-avowed socialist.  This simply goes to show that while some people may have differing opinions of the role of the federal government, they agree that the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights in particular, should be left alone.  Apparently, 86 other Senators, including Harry Reid, John McCain and Mitch McConnell, don't feel the same way.  Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Apparently most of our elected officials in our nation's capital need a refresher course on our history.  Or maybe they're just two sides of the same coin and they all want to "transform" this country into their own image of what we should be.  Well I'm sorry, I don't want their vision, I want the Founder's vision.  I for one will continue to fight to stop us from becoming the United Socialist States of America, will you?