The End of America: May 10, 2005

[Joejojoba111]

jefynk, yea it was copying and pasting. good eye, it totally nullify's any complains Oh well. Wait a minute, maybe it's a bad thing that this:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious..."

is followed by this:

"NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--"


Umm, that's a bad thing. It would be better if it were the mandatory national ID cards that was beyond judicial review (reality check, yes I just read that again, that would be the lesser of evils. Hang on, reading one more time...)


Come on now, you really think this is about the border? Is Mexican migration a new thing? I give the benefit of the doubt, perhaps no-one thought of making laws to strengthen borders before this. OH WAIT --- THEY DID! In the Patriot Act one entire section is devoted to laws strengthening border security!!! Except they refer ONLY to the Northern border. They make it painfully obvious that they wouldn't want anyone to misinterpret the articles and accidentally apply them to the Southern border.



Ok, so we have claims that legislation is needed that literally place a man above the law, for the purpose of securing a border which there was and is clearly a desire to keep unsecured. Then there's the concurrent legislation to make sure that a court can't call this legislation illegal (which in itself seems illegal!). And of course the cost-saving measure of standardizing driver's licenses, that will run a bill of multiple BILLIONS of $ before it's completed.

Hmm, check, check, check, mark, check. Ok nothing suspicious there, carry on, move it along now.

 

[Gung-Ho]

Awww...this just HAD to happen as I start my third read of Unintended Consequences. Who's got pigs?

Or nylon bar stock, and plenty of Bullseye.

 

[saltydog]

I feel like a full fledged "peasent today"
"So now who do we vote for?"

 

[HKGuns]

Looks to me like you've failed in your duties to protect and serve by supporting such unconstitutional legislation...

Please interpret and explain how this is unconstitutional?

Some of you are simply incredible! You whine and complain about illegals and when something is done to help fight the illegals, you whine and complain about big brother government. Most of you don't even bother to read the text of the document and just jump in with your conspiracy theories. I daresay nothing would please most of you. All you want to do is complain and serve your paranoid tendencies........."True Patriots!"

Its no surprise to me how strong the Anti gun crowd is when we have all these "Internet Patriots" running around the country half cocked with half baked conspiracy theories. With all of the constitutional lawyers in this crowd its a wonder Sarah Brady ever got the AWB through congress.

I wonder exactly how many of you "Internet Patriots" have actually served your country, as I have?

I'm going to have to stay out of this forum from now on....It only makes me angry that so many so-called responsible gun owners are completely incapable of a single rational thought. You are providing fodder to the anti's every time you open your mouths to spew forth such ignorant blather.

Here is a great example. What a fine American you are sir!

I hate those in congress and the White House more than I hate Osama.

 

[jefnvk]

Thank you tyme, that was the sort of answer I was looking for. I agree that that is not a good thing.

Sorry for the outburst, but I just see way too many people that doesn't even know what it does before they bash it. There was a person on another forum telling people that this new requirement required the national gov't to issue identification, required you to carry it whenever you were in public and required you to present it to any LEO without any cause. IMHO, that is not the thing to do. I have no use for people that falsely describe the situtation to drum up support for their side.

 

[Gung-Ho]

You whine and complain about illegals and when something is done to help fight the illegals, you whine and complain about big brother government.

As long as we do something right? Like this is really going to do anything but be abused by Big Brother. If they want to do something how about starting with securing the boarder? Hey, if it saves ONE life right? But hey, this will not be abused right? Just like my original SS card that says right on it that this number is not to be used for identification. :banghead:

 

[alan]

jefnvk:

In your reply to Joejojoba111, unless I've misread something, it seems that the two Secretaries you mentioned, Homeland Security and if memory serves Transportation, have one whole hell of a lot more power than do the people they presumably work for, The Citizenry of This Country. Personally, I find that bothersome. Seems as if some others might also.

Of course, I'm 72 years of age, and likely somewhat "old fashioned", regarding some things.

 

[Joejojoba111]

Alan you really show your age! I'm not a third of your wisdom, but I can't remember the last off-ramp that was built without martial law. How would they possibly erect chain-link without freedom from all legal constraints?


For those who worry about the southern border, and applaud the Feds for finally listening to them, read the Patriot Act once again:

"TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border

Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the northern border.
Sec. 402. Northern border personnel.
Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.
Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.
Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts.

Subtitle B--Enhanced Immigration Provisions...

Subtitle C--Preservation of Immigration Benefits for Victims of Terrorism..."


Where is section D "Protecting the Southern Border"? Well golly gee, there isn't one. I guess in their haste they forgot their is a North and a South? Hmm, wait a minute even the idiots Leno talks to on Jaywalking know that there is a North AND a South.

If the Mexican border is porous, it's because it is supposed to be so. Rumsfeld be damned we have evidence of absence. They make law to increase security for only 1 border, the border which least needed it. Then they can give a press release about how the border will be more secure, while keeping the southern border wide open, ON PURPOSE.

To my mind that says that THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT SECURING THE BORDER. So if they pass draconian legislation (which at its best is at least without precedent) in the name of securing the border, I Don't Think I'll Believe It.

Why are they lieing? Who knows, all I can say with evidence to support me is that they ARE lieing. And when you have someone lieing about the context for creating their dicatorial powers, normal people should be concerned.

 

[walking arsenal]

Dang canadians, gotta watch those sneaky buggers, they smuggle in mooses ya know.

 

[jefnvk]

In your reply to Joejojoba111, unless I've misread something, it seems that the two Secretaries you mentioned, Homeland Security and if memory serves Transportation, have one whole hell of a lot more power than do the people they presumably work for, The Citizenry of This Country. Personally, I find that bothersome. Seems as if some others might also.

Not old fashioned. I will admit, that when I posted that, I was more concerned that joe was trying to throw something up to prove his point, expecting me to not follow through. Now that I know it was just a typo, I can forgive him and go back to trying to figure out what exactly it does.

I will be the first to admit that I have a hard time with legalese. Give it to me in computer code, I'd have it down in a second, but a lawyer I am not. I am slowly working through what all it does.

As I said before, my main frustration is with the people that see 'feds' and 'id' in the same sentence, and just post 'papieren, bitte', and arguw when you disagree with them. In both internet land and real world, I've seen both. People, for example, read

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

and automatically assume that it means if you disagree, they can lock you up and throw you away, never to be heard from again, when it is talking about no one can take court action against the DHS for erecting fences along the border that hurt an endangered plant.

Is it giving the gov't more power? Yeah. Do I like it? No. Honestly, I think that the gov't was given too much power, and FWIW, giving it that sentence more ain't gonna make much of a difference. Fighting over whether or not the gov't can be sued when it does something contrary to the endangered species act while constructing border fences or checkpoints, is not a national emergency that we need to be focused on. At least, that is how I view it. I woud think that concentrating on the Patriot act would be of better use, not on what might happen to some remote, endangered plant that calls the US-Mexico border home.

As far as securing the borders, I don;t know what some people want to do. SHort of setting up and mannigng gun towers, installing a fence and running dogs, I don't really see a way to solve the problem short of something like this.

EDIT: just another thought, before I am off to bed. How many people complain that California will issue driver's licenses to illegals? And now, how many are complaining that the feds are stepping in and saying that you can only issue drivers licenses to legals, less you don't want it to be a valid form of ID?

EDIT again:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious..."

is followed by this:

"NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--"


Umm, that's a bad thing. It would be better if it were the mandatory national ID cards that was beyond judicial review (reality check, yes I just read that again, that would be the lesser of evils. Hang on, reading one more time...)

I guess I am still confuesd as to where you are going with this.

Once again, I want to emphasize where that amendment is going:

``(c) Waiver.--The provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
[16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.] and the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] are waived to the extent the Attorney
General determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the
barriers and roads under this section [amending this section].''

Onto a section saying that in building border protection, the gov't doesn;t have to follow the rules of the endangered species act and the EPA.


==Furthermore, if I am wrong anywhere in here (the factual stuff, not my reasoning) please correct me.==

 

[Joejojoba111]

To quibble, they say 'all laws'. All. They don't specify, 'just these laws', they say 'All laws'. All laws.

I suppose it could be a grey area, that we interpret it differently shows it can be mis-interpreted. Maybe they should let a court look it over. Oh wait, NO JUDICIAL REVIEW.

Cute, huh? And it's to reinforce a border they haven't said they will reinforce, nay that they have proven they will not reinforce.


"As far as securing the borders, I don;t know what some people want to do. SHort of setting up and mannigng gun towers, installing a fence and running dogs, I don't really see a way to solve the problem short of something like this."

Aside from the MG nests, that sounds reasonable. You have a border through which millions of clear and present security threats are passing (WOT, iirc, is still on?) you just might secure it. Look at Europe, many examples of secure borders. It's not a new concept. And the USA easily has the means to do it. You put up two or three concentric fences. Maybe you electrify one. You put seismic sensors around (these are not expensive, and they are VERY efficient and effective, the old models in Vietnam could tell you how many people were walking a hundred feet away, today they can tell you a mile away, and tell you what make of vehicle is driving nearby). There are also cheap portable ground radars. There is also the cheap cheap expedient of using a soft ground cover like sand, that is combed and kept near the fences, then you can tell when people have crossed, and how many, and roughly what time frame. There are so so many easy things to do.


Or at the very least you could implement the procedures already put in writing to BOTH borders! At the very least! They could do SOMETHING to increase security before granting themselves powers of a Sovereign, to solve a problem that they refuse to solve.

It boggles the mind.

And then nationalizing IDs with information that was never going to be used as ID, it more than boggles the mind, it's surreal. Un freaking real.



""TITLE IV--PROTECTING THE BORDER

Subtitle A--Protecting the Northern Border

Sec. 401. Ensuring adequate personnel on the northern border.
Sec. 402. Northern border personnel.
Sec. 403. Access by the Department of State and the INS to certain identifying information in the criminal history records of visa applicants and applicants for admission to the United States.
Sec. 404. Limited authority to pay overtime.
Sec. 405. Report on the integrated automated fingerprint identification system for ports of entry and overseas consular posts."

 

[Deavis]

In the 1930s, Congress promised us that our social security numbers would never, absolutely never, be used for identification. Now, they're the key to everything about us -- and without a social security number you won't get a drivers license and you won't even be "allowed" to drive after May 2008.

Old news, Texas already requires your social security number to get a driver's license. They say that is how they track down dead-beat dads. They also get it from you when you get a professional license, hunting license, or any myriad of other governemnt documnets. It is, after all, better to revoke a man's professional license, take away his ability to drive, and throw him in jail as a means to get him to pay child support. Sorry for the diversion but social security numbers and DLs is old hat.

 

[Blueduck]

I really try to worry about this kind of stuff but sorry can't.

Privacy of any sort died ten years ago, get over it. Any 14 year old with an internet connection can find out more about me or you, including a map to my house and political affiliations than information than is contained on an ID card.

I don't steal money so I don't care who knows how much I've got, I pay my taxes like a good boy so I don't care if they audit me. All the guns I own are legal so I don't care who knows I own them. Heck even the porn I look at on my computer is age and gender appropriate so I don't really care who knows about that either

Now the general arguemnt is "But one day the laws will change and you WILL be a criminal. If they do change to something I cannot morally tolerate then guess what? I will become a crimminal and they will know that too...

 

[jefnvk]

Any 14 year old with an internet connection can find out more about me or you, including a map to my house and political affiliations than information than is contained on an ID card.

Heck, I dig up arial pictures of people's houses for the fun of it.

 

[Gung-Ho]

"As far as securing the borders, I don;t know what some people want to do. SHort of setting up and mannigng gun towers, installing a fence and running dogs, I don't really see a way to solve the problem short of something like this."

Seems to me the Minutemen are showing the way.

 

[RealGun]

Oh wait, NO JUDICIAL REVIEW. - Joejojoba111

Did you find that in other than the context of building border barriers? It sounds a lot worse out of context.

 

[Joejojoba111]

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary..."

"NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--"


What context? What context??? The secretary has SOLE DISCRETION, SOLE DISCRETION, SOLE DISCRETION. He can wave ANY LAW, ANY LAW, ANY LAW he determines necessary. Necessary based on his SOLE DISCRETION. Any law.

The lack of judicial review, in this context, is such that no court will be allowed to say "That's fascist B.S., you can't do that.".

 

[sportshooter]

Revelation 13:17 "And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name."

It's coming.........

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Feh. Try opening a bank account for a small business since the Patriot Act took effect.

Know who should really be worried? Other countries! Damn, if history is to be believed, after domestic control is secured, well, adventures begin.

Ever heard of Iraq? Oh, but it was necessary for our security.

 

[jefnvk]

What context? What context??? The secretary has SOLE DISCRETION, SOLE DISCRETION, SOLE DISCRETION. He can wave ANY LAW, ANY LAW, ANY LAW he determines necessary. Necessary based on his SOLE DISCRETION. Any law.

Ah, crap. I just realized where I was going wrong. I might have to concede this point to joe. It is not amending the part to say that they can't be sued for violating the EPA and Endangered Species act. It is now expanding those two to include any law,in regards to building fences. Still don't know how big of an issue that is, but I will admit I screwed up before.

See, if people push me, I figure out my mistakes.

 

[ralphie98]

Disclaimer -- IANAL and I'm not a politician

Joejojoba111 -
When pasting this sort of thing, you should make sure you have the whole thing... it makes a difference as far as what the bill is saying. You keep pasting a shortened version of certain sections. Look over this part that I am re-pasting from Jefnvk's post on page 2.

`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.

`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court, administrative agency, or other entity shall have jurisdiction--

`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or

`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.

part 1 only lets the sec. of homeland security waive laws when it comes to building fences and roads as they apply to this section (sealing up boarders)

Under part 2 - remember that parts A and B are part of paragraph 2... this means that you can't sue homeland security when the sec. of homeland security exercises his powers granted to him in paragraph #1 to build a fence. The waiver of laws and the part about no judicial review all have to do with this section, no with all the laws in the United States. Not that I endorse what this is all about, I'm just trying to help clear things up.

 

[Augustwest]

I'm going to have to stay out of this forum from now on....

good.

While I'm grateful for your service in the past, I have no room in my life for people who question the patriotism of those who value freedom over the illusion of safety.

 

[alan]

Re this business of "border closings" or "border security", Mexican Border that is, note the following, please.

The government of Mexico could put a large crimp into illegal immigration from their country to the U.S., any time they desired. They do not so desire, because this immigration and the "repatriation" of funds serves as a giant SAFETY VALVE, without which the government of Mexico, whichever one you care to look at, might well, long since, been blown away.

People talk about the problems of divergence between the "rich" and "the "non-rich" here. I suggest that if they really want to see a divergence, that they look at Mexico. Absent such a look, "you ain't seen notin".

As to other aspects of the ongoing discussion, respecting Bankruptcy Reform, not mentioned specifically, The Congress recently finished "giving the store away" to the banking and credit card insustries. Regarding "national security" the rights and prerogeratives of American Citizens are rapidly becoming more and more circumscribed, and if anyone thinks that this sort of crap will make either the nation of the individual safer or more secure, think again, perhaps "think" for the first time. While we might not have become a Police State, just yet, we grow dangerously closer to that every day, and we most certainly have moved more and more to an ever more authoritarian form of government, with all the down side risk that accompanies such movement. Of course, this is nothing new, it's been going on for quite some years. Trouble is that alltogether to many of The Sheeple do not even realize what the hell is ongoing.

I have a couple of other pots to stir, so will close here, likely more later.

 

[Sindawe]

Just came across this web site/blog. http://realidrebellion.blogspot.com/

I've not explored it yet, just speading information.

 

[Joejojoba111]

"The waiver of laws and the part about no judicial review all have to do with this section, no with all the laws in the United States."

It specifically, clear and crystal clear, says all laws. One man has the power to waive and all laws HE determines expedient, and HE'S the only one allowed to comment on whether he is doing a good job.

So he can do ANYTHING, claiming it has something to do with barriers or roads, and if someone thinks he is over-ruling laws with nothing to do with barriers or roads, THAT'S TOUGH, HE HAS SOLE DISCRETION, AND THERE IS NO JUDICIAL REVIEW!

Then you have the standard cheap-skate stuff, we won't pay out after we bulldoze your house, because we felt it had something to do with barriers or roads, if you have a complaint you can **** we don't really care.

And then there's the ID card stuff involved too, it's not ID, you just can't hold a job or post a letter or enter a federal building of any kind, without it.