I hate being right all the time

As I foretold, Obama has now promised to sign the draconian new law empowering him to arrest and detain American citizens indefinitely, just so long as he and he alone declares them to be enemies of the state. You are now a subject, not a citizen and your rights (by bipartisan agreement of our Ruling Elites) come not from God but from the generosity and sufferance of our God King. If the state decides to strip you of your rights and deprive you of liberty forever while branding you a terrorist, they can now do it and no mortal power can save you. This is, de jure, the end of the US as a free society. The only question is: How long could it take for “de jure” to become ‘de facto”?

Anybody who thinks this will keep them safe is a fool.

"it is not a misnomer. Civil offenses do not result in criminal charges in criminal ..."

Not Romans 13. John 8:44
"I was being charitable. As you must know, the whole idea of a useful idiot ..."

What Trump Actually Accomplished in Singapore
"Big difference between presenting oneself at the border, and getting caught sneaking across the border."

Not Romans 13. John 8:44

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Mary Alice

    Do we hear the faint strains of “Nearer My God To Thee” up on deck? Seriously, Ron Paul, 2012. He is the only candidate who would not approve of this. The rest would support it as a needed part of the “war on terrah.”

  • Some Old Guy

    You’re probably 100% correct, Mark, but I still hold out a faint hope that when this is appealed to SCOTUS (and it certainly will be) they will not let it stand.

    • Timothy of Seattle

      We’ll see. I don’t recall there being a supreme court challenge to the McCarran Internal Security Act in the 50s, which was the last time that indefinite detention was approved by congress.

      • amichel

        The question is, who would have standing to sue? And how could they do so? Anyone who would actually be harmed by the act would also have been placed outside our normal judicial process. Seems like a catch-22 to me.

    • Will

      Well, as I understand ,the Supreme Court dealt with this question 145 years ago in Ex Parte Milligan, and two successive administrations have simply decided That Doesn’t Count.

  • thomas tucker

    As I wrote in Rod Dreher’s blog the other day, in reality we’ve long been living under the pleasant fiction that we do have rights gauranteed by the state. But if they are guaranteed by the state, they can be unguaranteed by the state. Might makes right, dog eats dog, and that’s the way of the world when not built on the firm foundation of Christianity. Our attachment to that foundation began crumbling long ago and now the house is falling down around us.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    Who is going to challenge this in the Supreme Court? You need standing to challenge a law, and no one affected by this travesty even gets a trial. It’s Supreme Court-proof!

  • PhilSFO

    When Isreal demanded a king the Lord God, Blessed be He, warned against it. George Washington is known as the man who would not be king for rejecting the title. Present day pols seem to want the power – how long before they crave the title Your Royal Majesty. As for me and my house, “we will serve” only the Lord. Since I am not a terrorist I need not worry now. BUT, and there is always a BUT! These kinds of laws too often end up being used against the innocent who are deemed enemies of the State. Thankfully as St. Paul wrote to us we have no permanent home here and a better home awaits the faithful in Heaven. Pax et Bonum.

  • Ammo makes nice stocking stuffers and nothing says “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” like a nice rifle or shotgun under the tree. Or, you know, a sword.

  • MikeTheGeek

    I can’t believe some of the people who voted for this – including my Sen’s.

    Sean – my financial guy always talks about “dollar cost averaging.” If it works for mutual funds, it will also work for ammo. A thousand rounds a month for a couple of years, and you’ll be in pretty good shape. Stick to .223/5.56 and 9mm, in case you ever need to use the Feds’ guns.

  • Cantorboy

    I think I’ll surrender now and get it over with….

    Seriously, though, time for everybody to read The Gulag Archipelago. (Can I still say that out loud?)

  • And, of course, there were 41 US Senators willing to take it a step further.

    “Offered to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 (S.1867), amendment No. 1274 would have allowed the U.S. government to detain an American citizen indefinitely, even after they had been tried and found not guilty, until Congress declares an end to the war on terror.”

    Sponsored by Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Voted for by 41 members of the US Senate, including two Democrats, one Independent, and the rest Republicans.


    I think at least those 41 need to lose their next election.

  • Matt B

    Say what you like about overreacting, but this law says a lot about the state of the judiciary.

    • Mark Shea

      This law says nothing about the state of the judiciary until the judiciary fails to strike it down. It says plenty about the legislative and executive branches though.

      • Matt B

        This law seems premised on the idea that the judiciary is incompetent to mete out swift and effective judgment, and that very sensitive and important cases should be removed from the ordinary jurisdiction.

        I concur that the federal courts especially, have devolved into circuses for establishing judicial fiat for law, relying on the prejudices of a short panel of lawyers to impose all sorts of bizarre and untested theories. It’s funny that even their own brother barristers in the executive and legislative branches have recognized judicial incompetence where anything really important is concerned.

        • Cinlef

          “This law seems premised on the idea that the judiciary is incompetent to mete out swift and effective judgment, and that very sensitive and important cases should be removed from the ordinary jurisdiction.”

          No it isn’t it’s premised on a rejection of the two core premises of any free society: innocent until proven guilty, and habeus corpus i.e. an endorsement of tyranny in the purest sense. As at least at first reading your comment appears to be. That judges occasionally prevent the government from convicting people of crimes is NOT A DEFECT !!

          • Matt B

            Do you think the national defense is a valid purpose of government? How is that served when people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed are hailed before the court in an arraignment of prior presidents and policies? Do you think we should fight wars in consultation with the 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals? Maybe we could get an assortment of fruitcakes to agree that “war is nuts,” and proscribe the whole bloody affair!

            • National defense is not the purpose of government; rather it is one among many acts a government takes in fulfilling its purpose.

              The purpose of government is to protect and promote the common good, primarily the good of justice.

              When actions of a government or a governmental institution work contrary to justice and the common good, that is an abuse of power. It becomes unjust governance, and no citizen is bound to obey or comply.

              Military action can be used to legitimately defend the nation and her people, or it can be used to impose tyranny and empire. It is a tool. It is not a purpose. When “national defense” becomes a “purpose,” an end in itself, the government has lost sight of its true purpose and is on a swift road to self-destruction.

              • Matt B

                Mr. King – great organization of the materials. I would refine your definition by stating that: “When actions of a government or a governmental institution work [FOR] justice and the common good…” it’s called an “accident.” Other words I might use are “coincidental,” “fortuitous,” “a pleasant surprise.” Implicit in my definition is also “completely unexpected.”

                Unlike you, I consider the national defence an integral function of government. If we can’t expect our free association to yield mutual protection, why did we give our consent in the first place?

                As far as justice goes, are you expecting to be schooled in this by the government?

      • Frank Weathers
        • It is a great chart, Frank, but in the bit that reads “Theoreticians/Labratory Experimenters/ Dash (–),” the dash should be replaced with “Engineers.”


          • And I should spell “Laboratory” correctly, even if it is 2 a.m. here. 🙂 🙂

  • Nathan T

    Sean, my “I heard it somewhere” understanding of terrorist classification is that the definitions for being a suspected terrorist are very vague. I believe one warning signs you may be a terrorist is gun ownership. If anyone has any more information on this, I’d love to be corrected.