Different Day, Same Shit.

My conversations with Senator Rubio, he happened to share with me that Disney World uses a biometric system to ensure people do not commit ticket fraud. If they are that easy, affordable and good enough for the Magic Kingdom, they ought to be good enough for the United States. Senator Sessions’ amendment would guarantee they would not be eligible for lawful citizenship until there is a biometric entry/exit system.

I do not know how leadership will ever do what Congress mandates them to do unless we use this trigger. It is that simple. I believe this is a constructed — constructive amendment that reaches the stated goals of protecting the United States system and making sure it is fair and workable. If we choose to ignore the 40 percent of immigration where we create a system that can be evaded, we have ignored our constituents concerns and failed to fix the problem.

The above comes from Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, as he explains how Walt Disney World's biometric entry and exit systems can be easily adapted to solve the nation's illegal immigration woes. This comes after fellow Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama proposed an amendment that would do just that.

With nearly 2000 miles of U.S.-Mexico border to look after and hundreds of border crossings along the way, insuring that no illegal immigrant manages to get through is a daunting, if effectively impossible task. Too many places where people and goods can slip through unnoticed and the will of those wanting to get into U.S. is powerful enough to overcome whatever setbacks the GOP throws in their way.

A Disney World security system won't solve any of those problems, but at least it will keep a few contractors well-fed and the GOP's core constituency satiated until the next moral or political crisis rattles their cages. Which leads me to wonder how they plan on paying for it all. With the sequester in full swing and government agencies scrambling to do more with less, it seems a bit foolish to fund something that even by Disney's own admission wouldn't work so well:

“It is true that Disney World used a fingerprint, and then when Disney Land went ahead to use their system they used a picture because it was better,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) said.

Still, the GOP would rather focus their energies on this than figure out a way to keep American children safe from gun violence and accidental gun discharges. Or a way to unfuck the legal immigration process. Or a way to promote economic growth throughout the continent and put a damper on drug cartel violence so people in Mexico and other countries south won't have a reason to risk life and limb to live and work in the U.S.

By the way, Sessions' Disneyland bill wound up dead at the hands of the Senate Judicial Committee in a 12 to 6 vote.

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVS), also known as drones, are aircraft either controlled by ‘pilots’ from the ground or increasingly, autonomously following a pre-programmed mission. (While there are dozens of different types of drones, they basically fall into two categories: those that are used for reconnaissance and surveillance purposes and those that are armed with missiles and bombs.

The use of drones has grown quickly in recent years because unlike manned aircraft they can stay aloft for many hours (Zephyr a British drone under development has just broken the world record by flying for over 82 hours nonstop); they are much cheaper than military aircraft and they are flown remotely so there is no danger to the flight crew.

While the British and US Reaper and Predator drones are physically in Afghanistan and Iraq, control is via satellite from Nellis and Creech USAF base outside Las Vegas, Nevada. Ground crews launch drones from the conflict zone, then operation is handed over to controllers at video screens in specially designed trailers in the Nevada desert. One person ‘flies’ the drone, another operates and monitors the cameras and sensors, while a third person is in contact with the “customers”, ground troops and commanders in the war zone. While armed drones were first used in the Balkans war, their use has dramatically escalated in Afghanistan, Iraq and in the CIA’s undeclared war in Pakistan.

- Sourced from Drone Wars UK

The new face of the ongoing forever war to root out suspected terrorists, further cement American hegemony in the Middle East and South Asia and to make the guys running Iran feel rather uncomfortable is what at first glance appears to be an overgrown RC plane with funny-looking fins. It's also an ever-growing bone of contention between the president, numerous Democrats, pundits fascinated with "poutrage" and the art of martyrdom for purity's sake and ordinary Americans who don't want to see some overgrown RC plane loitering over their house while grilling burgers in the backyard. Or get taken off this mortal coil by one.

The president's taken a beating over the use of drone warfare in the War on Terror time and again, mostly on the grounds of what he can and can't do in regards to using them and where. Most recently, members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus issued a letter to the administration demanding a little more transparency when it comes to drone use and the declassification of several DOJ memos that discuss the legal ramifications of targeting Americans in the commission of counterterrorism drone strikes. Some Senate Democrats are also asking questions:

President Barack Obama faced a tough question on drone policy from a fellow Democrat during a Senate meeting Tuesday and defended his administration's program, according to sources in the meeting.

The administration's drone program captured national attention last week when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) carried out a nearly 13-hour filibuster to protest elements of it.

Rand specifically wanted clarification from the White House as to whether it believes it has the authority to use a drone to kill an American citizen on American soil who is not engaged in combat, as it feels it does when a citizen is on foreign soil. The day after Rand's filibuster, Attorney General Eric Holder answered that no, the president does not have such authority.

Senate Democrats were largely absent from Paul's filibuster last week. But on Monday, a group of progressive Senate Democrats pressed Obama on the issue. Details of the exchange so far are scarce.

"There was an exchange, but I don't want to get into the specifics," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).

"Basically, the president said that they're doing everything they can to comply with the law and to give information to members of the Intelligence Committee," said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who paused for a long moment before answering. "And he said they would continue on that path."

A source in the meeting said one question was posed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a member of the Committee on Intelligence. A spokesperson for Rockefeller didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

I'm all for a little clarification and a definite restraint on power, in this case. Getting comfortable with the idea of drone warfare opens the doors to drones as a general solution for every "problem." Law enforcement agencies are chomping at the bit for a chance to deploy drones for surveillance and the FAA's accommodating them with a law that will, among other things, open up the nation's airspace to drones. A few states are attempting to put a damper on that fun before it even begins.

The disinformation campaign to cast the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as the dawn of a new "Nazi America" age continues unabated on Twitter. More and more people are attempting to use the bill as pretext for scaring the living shit out of the Occupy Wall Street people into discouraging support of President Barack Obama, and as an excuse for not casting a vote in his favor. I hate playing "conspiracy theorist" here, but I have to wonder if this isn't just some campaign whipped up by a conservative think tank to harness waves of liberal outrage and indignation to batter Obama's reelection chances - in other words, let the indignation and moral outrage of liberals and the smooth second-guessing of the professional left do the GOP's heavy lifting for them.

Milt Shook has a great article on his blog, the aptly named "Please Cut The Crap," that spells it all out for anyone who still has a hard time grasping the fact that, no, there isn't an "Indefinite Detention Bill" that locks up Americans indefinitely a la gulags and Nazi concentration camps:

Here’s the language in section 1021 that has the pro lefties up in arms. It’s in the Conference Report. Follow along, please. Oddly (?), most pro left cite (1), but leave out (2)-(4). I know, that just seems so odd, doesn’t it?

(c) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR.—The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111– 84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

Yes, I do admit section c) looks troubling, especially if you look at it all by itself. But as long as we have Obama (or Biden) in office, we have time to get rid of it, especially if we give them a Democratic Congress. But I would also note that the pro lefties also leave out sections b) d) and e). When you read them you’ll know why.

(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Oops.

Yes, you read that right. The so-called – the “Indefinite Detention Bill” that pro and emo lefties are trying to convince you will give the president the power to round us all up and detain us forever without a trial, not only doesn’t exist on its own, but the language is somewhat limiting, and specifically excludes US citizens or people who are in the United States legally. Section b) 2) does bother me, but I don’t think it’ll survive a court challenge because it’s too broad. What the hell is a “belligerent act,” for example? I once called a US Senator an asshole to his face; that was kind of belligerent.

I will note, for the record, that the provision does fly in the face of the 14th Amendment, and I don't like it. But I don't see anything in it that isn't reversible, and certainly nothing that's worth putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work for, just as we're recovering from the worst recession in 80 years.

Milt goes on to explain how the desire to trash can the entire bill has its own set of unwanted consequences:

Obama doesn't have a line-item veto, so he can’t veto the “Indefinite Detention Bill” without vetoing the entire NDAA. Now, you may think that would be a good thing, but would it? It’s not just about the troops. What about all of those civilians who might lose their jobs for at least a month or two, while Obama and the teabagging GOP worked out a new NDAA without that little amendment, assuming they could do so? What do you think canceling all those defense contracts for a month or two would do to the unemployment rate? How about six months? What would happen to all of those small towns that depend on the military bases and contractors to support their small businesses? Do you imagine the GOP might be a bit energized after the unemployment rate suddenly rises to 10%?

Those of you who claim “principle” when you discuss this need to stop. Many pros and emos claim Obama’s showing a “lack of principle” by signing this “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Forget the fact that you're claiming a lack of principle when you're lying to the public about a bill that doesn't exist. You’re actually advocating for an action that could put millions of people out of work for a few months, and forcing our troops to lose their meager pay for a few months for… what, exactly? What are your “principles” when you advocate for that, in order to kill an amendment that will probably ultimately have zero effect on anyone, and might even die in the courts?

AND I BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR THIS, NOT OBAMA. They put it there, not him. Blaming this on Obama is kind of like blaming the company who put the olives in the jar because you didn't chew your olive responsibly. Just saying.

In order to kill the above provisions, Obama has to kill the entire bill. That would be a politically stupid thing to do, and anyone with any common sense would understand that. The best way to handle this is to keep this provision in mind, give Obama a second term, and give him a Congress that will pass a repeal that he can sign. There you go; problem solved.

Sorry, Milt. Some people who are emotionally charged over the NDAA right now are dead set on not giving President Obama a second term. The funny thing about these folks is if you ask them if or why they think the nation would be better off with an Republican administration, given that such a thing is the alternative at the moment, you'll only get silence. Or a regurgitation of "throw the bum(s) out. That's right - throw the bums out, but let's not give any thought to the new set of bums filling their spots.

Personally speaking, I'm getting sick of these people. They'll risk handing the nation over on a silver platter to Republicans for the next generation over these lies. The Republicans aren't gonna stop them from believing a series of blatant lies and committing a terrible mistake that eventually works in the GOP's favor.

Milt leaves a wonderful parting shot for common-variety chucklefuck and current pied-piper of professional leftist disinformation Glenn Greenwald:

Look, folks, I don’t like this section of the bill much more than Greenwald does. On its face, without lying, it’s odious, especially if Obama is replaced by anyone in the current Republican field. The problem is, the bullshit braying being screeched by professional lefties like Glenn Greenwald actually helps make the possibility of a Republican president and a Republican Senate greater, not less likely. If you really want crap like this amendment repealed, you’ll need a Democratic House and Senate and a Democratic president. You’ll also need a Supreme Court appointed and approved by Democrats, because an entire court full of Scalia/Thomas/Alito clones will happily give a Republican president this power.

I'm beginning to believe the professional lefties relish the advent of a solidly Republican executive, judicial and legislative power structure. When that happens, the professional left will no longer be obligated to do any heavy lifting. Instead, they can spend all of their time mouthing lofty platitudes about what they believe ought to happen without any responsibility for making any of that happen. And when they're called on such tripe, they can always take a cool, soothing dip into their own personal pool of perpetual underdogism and beautiful martyrdom, and point to the GOP as an insurmountable brick wall for any action they commit. And then it's back to the DC/LA/NYC cocktail parties and other venues of preening self-importance.

I believe they'll piss themselves for the chance to usher in President Gingrich. There's a certain domestic abuse meme that comes into play, but I'm not gonna repeat it. You can see it, and somehow, it's terribly fitting.

Seriously, read Mitt Shook's article on the whole thing. It's a damn-near work of art.

See my previous posts on the National Defense Authorization Act by following the "NDAA" article tag.

If you haven't heard already, the House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 283 to 136, with 14 not voting. The White House was adamant about vetoing the bill unless several provisions were changed, which they were.

Applying pressure on House and Senate negotiators working on the bill last week, Obama and senior members of his national security team, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, had sought modifications in the detainee provisions.

Negotiators announced the changes late Monday, clearing the way for White House acceptance.
In a statement, press secretary Jay Carney said the new bill "does not challenge the president's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists and protect the American people."

Specifically, the bill would require that the military take custody of a suspect deemed to be a member of al-Qaida or its affiliates and who is involved in plotting or committing attacks on the United States. There is an exemption for U.S. citizens.

House and Senate negotiators added language that says nothing in the bill will affect "existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the FBI or any other domestic law enforcement agency" with regard to a captured suspect "regardless of whether such ... person is held in military custody."

The bill also says the president can waive the provision based on national security.
"While we remain concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counterterrorism professionals, the most recent changes give the president additional discretion in determining how the law will be implemented, consistent with our values and the rule of law, which are at the heart of our country's strength," Carney said.

All throughout Twitter, there's fear that the provisions within this bill as they pertain to terrorist detainees will be used to "infinitely detain" #OWS protesters and destroy the movement. And there are plenty of people who are using this bill as pretext for torpedoing President Obama's support among liberals.

Therefore, I'm providing a link to a previous post I made about NDAA right at the beginning of the misinformation spread, "The Homeland Is Part Of The Battlefield." Please give it a read before jumping on the "OBAMA SIGNED NDAA! OBAMA TEH EVULZ!" bandwagon.

EDIT: Obama did not promise to veto the bill outright, contrary to what some would believe. He promised to veto the original bill, until it was revised to his liking. Afterwards, there was no need for him to veto the bill.