Feinstein’s Indefinite Detention Amendment May Actually Expand Executive Power

Feinstein’s Indefinite Detention Amendment May Actually Expand Executive Power


Feinstein’s Indefinite Detention Amendment May Actually Expand Executive Power
77 Comments


137
On Saturday I had written an article about Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with regards to “indefinite detention” that was approved in the Senate last Thursday. In my haste, I failed to fully understand what the amendment was providing and thanks to Dan Johnson of People Against The NDAA (PANDA) I was made aware of just how bad it really is. Therefore, for those who might have been wondering, that is why I quickly pulled the article. It is not my intent to mislead or provide inaccurate information.
The Feinstein amendment, sadly endorsed by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) after his amendment failed, passed 67-29. The amendment drew support from some 20 Republicans, as well as, 46 Democrats.
The key language in the amendment that has raised a controversy is the following:
“An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.”



The main problem with the amendment is two fold. One, the amendment only addresses citizens and those who are “lawful permanent residents.” The problem with that is that we are to be a nation of laws. Our Constitution affords anyone in our borders, and is not specific to citizens or those who are “lawful permanent residents,” to due process, including those visiting who do not fall into the previous two categories. The Fifth Amendment is clear:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The second problem is the use of the phrase in the amendment that says, “unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.” In a letter written by the American Civil Liberties Union and sent to lawmakers in Washington, they wrote, “the clause ‘unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention’ could be read to imply that there are no constitutional obstacles to Congress enacting a statute that would authorize the domestic military detention of any person in the United States.”
They are not alone. Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) seemed to agree: “This is a big ‘unless,’” he said.
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) took to Facebook and spoke to the specific phrase in question and stated unquivocally, “Well, that Act of Congress is the 2012 NDAA, which renders the rest of the Feinstein amendment meaningless.”
Amash also said, “The Feinstein amendment to the 2013 NDAA does NOT protect you from indefinite detention without charge or trial. In fact, it explicitly permits such detention so long as the detention is approved by an Act of Congress . . . such as the 2012 NDAA.”
Michael Kelly at Business Insider writes,
Michael McAuliff of The Huffington Post points out that Levin himself said that he believes “the 2001 authorization for the use of military force [AUMF] authorized the detention of U.S. citizens when appropriate in accordance with the laws of war.” The AUMF gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain anyone involved in carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

And, as we reported yesterday, lawyer Bruce Afran said that the 2013 NDAA “states that persons lawfully in the U.S. can be detained under the [AUMF]” because it equates the AUMF with section 1021 of the NDAA, which allows the president to indefinitely detain anyone who commits a “belligerent act” or provides “substantial support” to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or “associated forces.”

“Therefore, under the guise of supposedly adding protection to Americans, the new statute actually expands the AUMF to civilians in the U.S,” Afran said.
Patricia Levi writes at PolicyMic, “The NDAA bill passed by the House does not contain similar language to the Feinstein amendment, and it is unclear if the two branches of Congress can resolve these differences before the lame duck session of Congress ends.”
It can be said that the Feinstein amendment does absolutely noting to protect anyone in the borders of the United States from being indefinitely detained simply because the government says they are terrorists or affiliated with terrorists. These individuals, whether citizens or visitors would not be afforded a basic protection under the U.S. Constitution to due process. I’ll remind you that it was Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who stood on the Senate floor and said if you are caught in the midst of this, Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer.”
As far as I’m concerned, and you should be too, amendments are not going to be enough. The legislation needs to be repealed, just like Obamacare needs to be repealed.

77 comments

Leave a message...
Discussion
Community
My Disqus 4
Share

Terrie Looney • 10 hours ago
feinstein needs to go to jail for treason
33  •Reply•Share ›

har82  Terrie Looney • 3 hours ago
I can think of about 500 more of them just like her that needs some jail time too.
0  •Reply•Share ›

farRight • 10 hours ago
The damn traitors in the Senate need to be dealt with as any traitors who have sworn an oath to the Constitution.
33  •Reply•Share ›

regulus30  farRight • 10 hours ago
OBAAMA;;SENATE;;;;MEDIA ACCOMPLICES;;;WOW THIS IS GOING TO GET UGLY;; lock-n-load........
24  •Reply•Share ›

futurelife  farRight • 2 hours ago
so true, get them and make them pay but they make the laws and we know that won't happen
0  •Reply•Share ›

TonysTake • 9 hours ago
It is clear as a zit on your nose now. The only way the American People can reclaim their rights granted to us by God will be through an armed rebellion. Our existing government is not working for the people and has indeed turned tyrannical. Our elections are a farce. Force is the only thing they understand now. Prepare.
27  •Reply•Share ›

James Tabone  TonysTake • 9 hours ago
If a revolution ever took place into the streets, you can count on his "highness Idi Hussein Amin Obungo to exercise the clause: "...any citizen who commits a belligerent act..." to justify in the arrest and detention of American patriots w/o trial! Further, it could give cause for him to declare martial law. This amendment is a joke.
15  •Reply•Share ›

PastorRuth1  James Tabone • 3 hours ago
His 800 FEMA camps are ready and waiting with high tech surveilance, double barbed wire fences, complete with playgrounds! Who are we kidding! We do NOT want open rebellion or revolution...We and our children would be the losers...and Barak Husein Osama and his cohorts, along with their thousand of drones, would win. DON'T GIVE HIM AN EXCUSE TO EXERCISE HIS NEW MARTIAL LAW EXECUTIVE ORDER which he signed into law last March...Like a creaping preying mantis he signed under our noses and that of the sleeping Congress powers that grant him total and unquestioning power over EVERY US CITIZEN - guilty or not! You are presumed guilty without a reason, a phone call, or a lawyer...This is NOT fair...It is TYRANY!! We must work to have a fair and fraud free election and insure our people are elected.

By the way, Rand Paul is usually correct, so I question the facts as presented here, as he would not support anything that infringed on our freedoms, but it a Patriot of the highest sort! He had good reason, I am sure, for supporting this!
1  •Reply•Share ›

ARMYOF69  James Tabone • 8 hours ago
I MC'd at a special dinner for a president by the name Tabone, many years back. He passed away not so long ago. A real gentleman.
0  •Reply•Share ›

Old one  TonysTake • 7 hours ago −
Go for it old dude. Passed this on the the appropriate authorities so expect a visit from the old or new black panthers. They will be putting you in the nearest FEMA interment camp. And you'll be listening to 24/7 rap music and eating vegan food. Enjoy disgusting old man.
0  4 •Reply•Share ›

TonysTake  Old one • 7 hours ago
I look forward to the human trash you are sending, arriving soon I hope. I have a present for them. It will be a fast end if they tell me who you are and where to find your happy self and a slow one if they do not. Unlike you, I don't make idle threats.
5  •Reply•Share ›

regulus30 • 10 hours ago
the old HAG IS A LIBERAL;;aka pelosi,boxer and the rest of the worn out vaginas
32  1 •Reply•Share ›

Lacky  regulus30 • 7 hours ago
How disgusting you old white men can be. You don't mention penises when denigrating your crackers senators like gay Graham and senile McCain or any others. Yiu guys need to crawl back in a hole. No civility in this alleged Rep party anymore. Go eat more chicken and best up a lesbian or homo or just a convenient person of color. Disgusting.
0  8 •Reply•Share ›

TonysTake  Lacky • 7 hours ago
TROLL
8  •Reply•Share ›

Lacky  TonysTake • 6 hours ago
So it is ok for old white men to say disgusting things about women. Old white men can't win elections. Thank god. We are blessed
0  3 •Reply•Share ›

Timothy OLeary  Lacky • 6 hours ago
Eat SH..T!
4  •Reply•Share ›

Bob Marshall  Lacky • 4 hours ago
What is disgusting is millions of African-Americans not knowing their ancestors history under the Democratic Party.
3  •Reply•Share ›

panors77  Bob Marshall • 3 hours ago
AND....not knowing the dem party history for it is THEY that were for slavery, started the KKK and the Jim Crow laws. All southern democrats.
0  •Reply•Share ›

VINCERE  Lacky • 6 hours ago
Boo, phukking hook.
2  •Reply•Share ›

Ray Downen • 10 hours ago
If our government was led by patriots who loved the Constitution and its amendments, that would make such language acceptable to many. But when we know that the present administration is opposed to our liberty, how would we dare to make laws allowing them to ignore the Constitution? That they'll do it is likely, with or without congressional approval.
17  •Reply•Share ›

Granpa David  Ray Downen • 9 hours ago
Exactly Ray. How can the Constitution's Bill of Rights grant us all the freedoms of grand jury etc., and our congress pass such a thing that is completely unconstitutional. We are in bad times.
12  •Reply•Share ›

Krazeehors  Ray Downen • 8 hours ago
Question: I knew a "Downen" in So. Illinois. Any relation?? This is a serious question.
0  •Reply•Share ›

chvietvet • 9 hours ago
We need a law to eliminate indefinite blacklisting by the United States government, as the death rate of homeless veterans shows can be even more deadly than imprisonment. I fought two combat tours in Vietnam and received my honorable discharge in 1968. Since then, I have been blacklisted for all employment in the United States, as have a few hundred thousand other Vietnam War veterans, most of whom have already died after a life in poverty. Obviously, enough civil servants and politicians went over to the Communist side during that war and then subjected veterans to employment discrimination as reprisal. For many years, I worked in foreign countries for foreign and international employers, but in 1998, I was hired by the U.S. Forest Service as part of a negotiated settlement agreement after two of its employees offered me $20,000 to withdraw from a civil service selection. As a veteran, I was blocking the list to a much less qualified non-veteran the agency wanted to hire. The Forest Service immediately hired a specialist in firing scientists from the Department of the Interior to make a case for getting rid of me. She tried hard by committing perjury at a hearing by the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), but she failed to make a case. When the perjury was proven, the administrative judge stated that the MSPB is an administrative board and has no jurisdiction over crimes like perjury. So perjury is OK. In his decision, the adminstrative judge made up two fictitious stories to justify my removal. One had been contradicted by two agency witnesses during the hearing, and the other was fully obsurd. He faulted me for not submitting a written list of microscopic animals I had seen without using a microscope. This was his take on the Forest Service refusing to supply me with a microscope I needed to identify microscopic organisms and a verbal discussion about the refusal. The Forest Service then telephoned both federal and state agencies to make sure that I would never get any job again. What about an amendment to eliminate such blacklisting for war service and for blowing the whistle on felonies committed by federal employees? What about putting administrative judges in prison if they falsify records?
15  •Reply•Share ›

Mikie40  chvietvet • 4 hours ago
They all need a serious case of high speed lead posining!
2  •Reply•Share ›

Krazeehors  chvietvet • 8 hours ago
The US Postal Service did exactly the SAME thing. I have a friend who fought with them for over 20 years until he finally retired. They tried everything they could to cheat this man out of his pension.
2  •Reply•Share ›

djw663 • 10 hours ago
We talked about this last week and you may not have understood how bad the amendment but I'm sure your readers saw it, I did. Feinstein is as liberal as they come and just because she is under the radar (so to speak) does not mean she is not trying to push the liberal agenda that is like saying Boxer is a moderate too, LMAO.
14  •Reply•Share ›

oldcoyote  djw663 • 9 hours ago
Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer. Lautenberg, Kohl, Levin, and the rest of their ilk can GTH. They ARE the problem.
15  •Reply•Share ›

Edward53  oldcoyote • 9 hours ago
oldcoyote, for the first time, I agree with you.
2  •Reply•Share ›

djw663  oldcoyote • 4 hours ago
Yes there are way to many to name individually and I noticed you only named a few before having to use "ilk" one of these days we will actually have to name all the problems with our government but most forums don't allow that many characters. Lets just say 85% of the Senate and 35% of the House 75% of all Governers ya my thumbs are cramping already so all those people and the rest of their ilk!!!
1  •Reply•Share ›

Goldram • 10 hours ago
Same slippery slopes as 1930's Germany.
13  •Reply•Share ›

TheSunDidIt • 10 hours ago
Folks, now is a good time to crank up the Tea Party as a viable alternative to BOTH of the insane parties now running the nation into the ground and stripping our freedoms and liberties. Have to agree with "farright" that this is treasonous and if done during wartime (oops, we're in that according to this self-same whitewashed graves) is punishable by capital punishment. Folks, this isn't "playtime". This is serious and our ancestors, at least mine, laid down life, limb and risked all to provide these freedoms to you all. Are you so lazy to lay down all without a fight?
12  •Reply•Share ›

Lawyer  TheSunDidIt • 7 hours ago
Please make sure you start a third party now. You'll need to get lots of money and find some deranged white dude to run for President. Sarah or Michelle would be nice but we all know the place of women. They do have vaginas. So ramp it up. Bet Sheriff Joe will join y and old Allen and Newt are really doing nothing. Get started ASAP. BTW. got yiur RF micro chip yet. Don't let tall black dudes in the house. Distribution has started. Bury yiur guns in the back yard. Eat more chicken.
0  2 •Reply•Share ›

HadEnuf • 9 hours ago
You know, I ve had more than enough of these communist, punk^ss lawyers with their double talk when it involves my freedom! My reply to them, keep it up and I have a double barrel answer! Do these pathetic lilliputians think that they are so, so ef'n clever and that we are s, so, stupid - they had better think again! 1776...1776...1776!
11  •Reply•Share ›

Fideux • 9 hours ago
Let her and oblowma be the first to be indefinitely locked up!
10  •Reply•Share ›

rwdodgerblue  Fideux • 8 hours ago
section 1021 of the NDAA, which allows the president to indefinitely detain anyone who commits a “belligerent act” or provides “substantial support” to the Taliban, al-Qaeda or “associated forces.
Does this also apply to the prez and anyone in government? Hmmm...
3  •Reply•Share ›

jvb1980808 • 9 hours ago
From the party who had hissy fits over water boarding terrorists.
9  •Reply•Share ›

Liberty Rock • 9 hours ago
TO ALL 38 STATES CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS

Abolished, Criminalized, Outlawed NDAA & FEMA CAMPS

Abolished, Crimibalized, Outllawed All Obama's Executive Unconstitutional Orders

Abolished, Criminalized, Outlawed Democrats That Committed Treason

Abolished, Criminalized, Outlawed The Feds Authority

Abolished, Criminalized, Outlawed Obamacare

Abollished, Criminalized, Outlawed The UN Treaties & Laws

Abolished, Criminalized, Outlawed All UnConstitutional Regulations, Laws, Policies

Re-enfocred The Constitution, Bill Of Rights & The Declaration Of Independence As The Law Of The Land
8  •Reply•Share ›

YRofTexas  Liberty Rock • 7 hours ago
Very simply, very directly, summarized very well.
Thank you, Liberty Rock!
If I could represent Texas in this forum, I support your suggestions 100%.
Where do we start?
3  •Reply•Share ›

nofreebies4u • 8 hours ago
I am very disappointed in Rand Paul's support of radical senator Feinstein's amendment and will immediately remove myself from his newsletters or emails. There are already laws which can deal with terrorists and there is no need to open up for loose interpretation any means to illegally, yes illegally detain American citizens without charges or trials. Actions taken like this against a population of a country are reminiscent of dictatorships under Nazi Germany and Stalin in the USSR.

Any time that a citizen can be arbitrally locked up or removed from society at the whim of some goverment official, the republic, democracy and freedom ceases to exist. It is morally wrong to throw away over 230 years of this country's history of liberty and justice because some idiot politicians are insecure. The founding fathers that risked everything to create our country would be shocked and repulsed at these kind of actions.This is nothing less than an attempted power grab and an attack on the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution which is still the supreme law of the land.
6  •Reply•Share ›

YRofTexas  nofreebies4u • 7 hours ago
Agreed with you. Rand Paul dropped the proverbial ball on this one.
Too bad, he seemed to have his ducks lined up so well, too.
1  •Reply•Share ›

Batch • 8 hours ago
Here is what I wrote and had the bill/law examined by for attorneys after I gave them the items discussed.

Feel free to email or call me. We are in trouble and after Boehner did today against the Tea party. This is war and the Rep party can pound sand for Barny who loves his perversion

NDAA illusion

Subtitle D Lies

Dear Mr. Jeff Sessions and all the remaining so called
representatives…

This letter is in direct response to the letter received
from your office written on January 10, 2012.

Your letter is misleading to say the least. I will go
through each area. Follow along if you will.

Sec 1021 (a)

President to use
all necessary and appropriate force (this is an open ended definition)
we will come back to this wording on how it is going to be used

Sec (b) (2)

This sections calls on the persons, engaged in hostilities – person who has committed a belligerent act or has
directly supported such hostilities
in aid of such enemy forces

Belligerent –
is defined as individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner.

Hostile –
definition – “Engaging in Combat”

I high light these words for a reason and you will
understand as the issues regarding this bill unfold. These words are
intentionally spread throughout the bill, weaving sections together by the
continuation of stepped definitions. This is what is so insidious about this
particular bill/law.

1021(c)

Under law of War. (Since the aspect of war against terror
has no boarders, thus allowing the entire aspects of the USA under law of war.)
Thus in effect stating that we are in a constant state of war here at home.

Sec. 1021- C (1)

(Detention under the law
of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the authorization) meaning the
president used section (a) Public law 107-40

Sec. 1021 (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 individual considered to be “covered persons” for purpose of subsection (b) (2).

Now remembering that the “covered persons” is out lined in
section (b) (2)

“engaged in
hostilities against the United States”

“persons who has
committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid.”

Now this section is out lining how the Secretary of Defense
is going to stand in front of Congress and tell them how the interpretation or
application of authority is going to label new organizations, entities, and or
individuals to be covered persons.

An individual placing American Citizens or whomever in the
group of covered persons.

Which by the way there are no guide lines to which the
aspect of these new enlisted covered persons are to be quantified, except the
vague wording of “application of the
authority described in this section”.

What it is really stating, whatever we need it to be at that
moment to fit our goals. The Law of
war.

Gives you that power, Sec 1021 (a)”President to use all necessary and appropriate force”

Public law 107-40

These aspects of the wild, wild, west rules, with one or a
selective group to re-vamp or change, add, re-interpret definitions.

Three examples come to mind.

One being the health care bill, where there were similar
issues and clauses, along with open ended sections that were left for later.
Hence the statement from then speaker, Pelosi. “You must pass it to see what’s in it.”

Now we are realizing the power handed off inside the bill to
HHS Director, Sebelius.

She is now deciding who, what and where. This is the same
thing with NDAA bill, now law. Very poorly written on purpose I would imagine.
Leaving things out or un defined in order to allowing time to expire, thus the
public is fed doses of information not realizing the full extent of what has
been perpetrated onto them. Also
allowing cover for any phone call that might be made by upset
constituents.

Second Health care issue, Stupak letter. This too was a ruse
regarding the public trust. We all know how that turned out. Stupak realizing
what he has just done and retires in shame.

Sec. 1022(a)

“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 Law107-40) in military custody pending disposition under
the law of war. “

Hold,
means you are being held.

As I have pointed out in sec 1021(f) the definition of who can be labeled as a “covered person” is open for
definition. Associated with the additional twist of pending disposition located in Sec 1021(a) at the very end of the paragraph.

What this really means is that the President can interpret
the disposition or actual events or imagined in his brain. Thus allowing
certain agenda’s to be pushed forward under the ruse of National Security.

Thus allowing even more warped decision making, pertaining
to certain groups or entities, persons that will be added to sec 1021 (a)(2).

If you think this will or cannot happen. Please remember,
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Which brings me to the next point and section of the Law
past.

Sec 1022. (C) (2)
(A)

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

As I stated before, the process that chooses who decides on
who decides how definitions are to be labeled while testifying in front of
Congress. Still is not even worked out.

Does Sebelius
ring a bell? Why not complete the work,
label what needs to happen, in order to fully understand all aspects and
ramifications. Thus allowing the public to weight in regarding how the
government may intrude on their lives. The
Gov. serves the people, not the other way around.

In closing, this bill now law should have never been brought
to the floor of any house. It is in direct violation of the constitution and
the oath taken by all the so called Rep’s.

Your inability to view the ramifications is troubling. My
conclusion regarding this small section of a bill/law brings me to a few
conclusions.

1.
Your office did not read the bill and had others
write it.

2.
You knew that it could be re-written as it is
outlined in the law and went along.

3.
You did not know and signed it without really
looking into it, trusting others to do your due diligence.

I also want to mention the bill S 1698, which your office
sent me a letter on January 26, 2012

This bill is stuck in Senate Judiciary Committee for review.
This in my opinion is another piece of the grand puzzle regarding your ability
to add to sections of covered persons. The associates that are or have worked
on this bill with you are Lieberman, McCain (S 3801). Very telling, you have
worked or been working on this for some years. You continually use the cover of
safety. I believe this not to be the case.

You are casting a net over the people of whom you swore to
serve. It seems you want us to serve you. I would have thought that a southern
gentleman would have more forward looking mind set for his brothers and
sisters.

I believe America is waking up to the games that have gone
on for too many years. We are tired; at least I am, of the pampered politicians
that give us lip service and vote against us in Washington.

I look forward to your next election, if at that time we are
still having them. Either way, your next run. Your record and all that it contains
will be the focus. (all of you)

We need to remove any and all peoples that are just going
along to get along. Those days are done. Anyone who thinks America and the
citizen there of, should or will bow to the one world government that some
representatives are covertly steering us to. One by one we will focus on them
as their terms come due. Hence the large amount of representatives that are not
running again.

If you try to dismiss my ascertained link regarding the
peppered words throughout the so called new law. I give you one more example.
Bill Clinton, the lies spewing from his mouth when he stated, “I was confused
on the definition of the word “is”. “ So if one can focus on such a small
aspect, this only reinforces my truth outline above.

My opinion of you and
all individuals that signed this bill into law are traitors to the aspects of
your oath taken to up hold the constitution which you seem to hold in such
disregard as to use it as toilet paper when you feel the need to excrement over
or on the Citizens of the United States of America. The patriot act falls under
this same heading.


I eagerly await your written response to the above out line.
Please show me where I have miss interpreted the gaping holes in this NDAA law.

As an aside, there is a bill now being presented in the
house, HR 3785, that is stating the same thing that I have outlined above. I
also want to mention, if I did what you have done to any one of my clients, I
would be sued. I find it hard to stomach, paying someone a salary for life mind
you, which would hold us in such disregard as you have, along with the other
individuals who put their hand to said bill/law.

David S. Batchelder

509 Laurel Woods Trail

Helena, Alabama 35080

1-205-358-8421
6  •Reply•Share ›

Janice Claire  Batch • 6 hours ago
Awesome!
1  •Reply•Share ›

James  Batch • 7 hours ago
you type very nicely. I bet y can get one of those minimum wage jobs the Reps talk about as a data entry clerk.. Think about it. It would keep,you from bothering busy legislative dudes. it was obvious y were from the south but you confirmed it. Inbreeding is awful there. Go eat some more chicken and sit next to an empty chair. It will make y feel better. Also take your meds.
0  2 •Reply•Share ›

whynot  James • 6 hours ago
You James are the perfect example of how a zit on obaminations black backside can be a different color because of what is contained inside....when you made your comment you poped and showed your corruption!!!!!!
0  •Reply•Share ›

ARMYOF69 • 9 hours ago
The one thing that we do that keeps all our politicians going...is OUR SPENDING, and the taxes therefrom. STOP ALL UNNECESSARY SPENDING. Keep that car for another four years. And no one really needs more than one large LCD TV set at home. Buy silver and hide it well.
Instead, go out and buy GUNS and AMMO, and freeze dried food, place metal bars on all your windows, replace entrance doors to really solid wood. Get a Rottweiller . Get ready for what is coming. And, oh yeah, stop watching all those news channels, FOX included, they are all bought and paid for by the NWO.
6  •Reply•Share ›

isis5551 • 9 hours ago
No surprize here. The smart ones all knew, that all he wanted to be when he grew up, was a commie Dicktator. We just didn't think he'd gotten past the shitty diaper stage yet!
6  •Reply•Share ›

JuneUSA • 9 hours ago
Just because you are among the elitist group and don't have to go by the Constitution, we would appreciate it if you would quit making laws that the rest of us have to live with, and ones that makes us criminals just for living in the USA. Go away and take a nice long vacation like for the rest of your life. Indefinite detention is against our laws and you know it. Why do you do things like this? Can't you make laws that we know will be for the good of our country? I have yet to hear of one from this administration. The only thing you do is take away our rights. WE do not want to live under socialism, communism or any other ism.
5  •Reply•Share ›

kent • 8 hours ago
ALL politicians need to be removed. They ALL have their special agendas and to HELL with America's citizens,,,,,,,,,,,
4  •Reply•Share ›

reggiec • 9 hours ago
I would not trust ANYONE in this administration to decide who should be listed under their criteria for detainment. If that authority is granted to them ANYONE could fall under their twisted logic. Remember how the head of Homeland Security classified possible terrorists; Ex service members, Second Amendment supporters, anti abortionists and supportrs of grass roots candidates.
***
How many of us fit that designation?
4  •Reply•Share ›

rkz777 • 8 hours ago
communist are alive and well in the U.S.Government.
3  •Reply•Share ›
Load more comments
What's this? ×
ALSO ON FREEDOM OUTPOST
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/feinsteins-indefinite-detention-