Seriously, has anyone heard this, the US senate just passed a bill that would allow the president/or government to use the military to detain any US citizen without due process or any charges at all, just based on pure suspicion, they have declared america a battlefield. This is susposed to "protect" us from "terrorist" huh........lol at the politicians trying to get military protection from the soon to be angry masses.

Yeah, that's why I don't support either major party.  They're both fascist with fascist intentions. 

BTW -- interesting, um, rider on this bill:

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/tag/senate-bill-1867/

Seriously, has anyone heard this, *snip* they have declared america a battlefield.


Although I wanted to make the obvious Pat Benatar reference, I landed here instead:

fELrliuqZvM

Gimme back the Berlin Wall,
Gimme Stalin and St. Paul,
Give me Christ or give me Hiroshima.

Yeah, I've heard that.  Now that I know "what they meant", now you know why I miss the Cold War.  I grew up in an age in which you could tell the good guys from the bad guys by virtue of the things that a nation's security forces couldn't do to its citizens.  As you've figured out, those days are long gone.  I've seen the future, brother; it is murder.

Seriously, has anyone heard this, the US senate just passed a bill that would allow the president/or government to use the military to detain any US citizen without due process or any charges at all, just based on pure suspicion, they have declared america a battlefield. This is susposed to "protect" us from "terrorist" huh........lol at the politicians trying to get military protection from the soon to be angry masses.


Given that the "occupy" movement in London has been classed alongside "terrorist", how long before the same thing happens over there allowing any OWS protester to be picked up by the military as an enemy combatant?

Given that the "occupy" movement in London has been classed alongside "terrorist", how long before the same thing happens over there allowing any OWS protester to be picked up by the military as an enemy combatant?


When the ink dries.

When the ink dries.


Step out of the vehicle, please, Mr. Foo Bar. 

Step out of the vehicle, please, Mr. Foo Bar.  


Homeland security just got 20% cooler.


"The West Michigan Shoreline Regional Development Commission (WMSRDC) is a federal- and state-designated agency responsible for managing and administrating the homeland security program in Montcalm County and 12 other counties.  The WMSRDC recently purchased and transferred homeland security equipment to these counties — including 13 snow cone machines at a total cost of $11,700.  

The Michigan Homeland Security Grant Program’s Allowable Cost Justification document, dated May 9, 2011, says the snow cone machines can make ice to prevent heat-related illnesses during emergencies, treat injuries and provide snow cones as an outreach at promotional events.

WMSRDC Executive Director Sandeep Dey said one county requested a popcorn machine, but that request was denied. He said the snow cone machine request would not have been granted by itself, but was approved because it came with other homeland security equipment. “It is used to attract people so they can be educated and prepared for homeland security,” Dey said from his office in Muskegon. “More importantly, they (homeland security officials) felt in a medical emergency the machine was capable of making ice packs which could be used for medical purposes.”"


They can take our freedoms.  But they'll never take our SNO-COOOOOOOOOOOOONES!.

When the ink dries.

Sounds like that ought to go into a "For whom the bell tolls" parody (only one more syllable needed)

Homeland security just got 20% cooler.

They can take our freedoms.  But they'll never take our SNO-COOOOOOOOOOOOONES!.


You want a strawberry medical ice pack or a vanilla medical ice pack?
:-\\

Both of you up there are tempting me to snark (or ponify) the obvious references, but even I gotta say that the precedent set by this bill is srz biznz.


Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying.  They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

cf: DMCA, Patriot Act, Prevention of Terrorism Act (UK), Enabling Act (Weimar Germany)...


Even CIA Director David Petraeus, DNI James Clapper, and FBI Director Robert Mueller, think this is a bad idea.  

So I gotta wonder: cui bono?  Who actually wins from this?  If the intelligence community doesn't want it, and the law enforcement community doesn't want it, and it's gonna pass anyways, just who the hell does want it?  (Why you lookin' at me?  LOL I dunno!  If I did, I wouldn't be here, I'd be figuring out what they were invested in and investing in those companies! :)

I'd encourage anyone seriously interested in these matters to read the following blog.  No tinfoil.  No partisanship.  Just legal analysis.  At least, for as long as laws matter.

Hey.  It's not like Dec. 7th wasn't already a date which shall live in infamy.  Whoever's running the show gets ten out of ten for style.