The NDAA lawsuit moves through the courts.

Submitted by Roanman on Sat, 02/09/2013 - 07:28


To refresh your memory, about the only bipartisan piece of legislation to make it's way out of our hopelessly poisoned political system in years is the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 which offers up the following atrocity.


Subtitle D — Counterterrorism


(a) IN GENERAL. — Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(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.

(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.


Now, here's the question you might think to be asking yourself.

If someone can be held without trial until the "end of hostilities" how can they possibly seek to demonstrate that a charge of having "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" is false?

That's before you even begin to start wondering about the fact that the federal government has supported and partnered with Al Queda for a generation .... think Libya for just the most recent example.

Which of course makes most of both houses of Congress, the last two Presidents of the United States, not to mention the current front runner for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States along with likely most of the CIA, units of "Military Intelligence, and certain investment banks, bankers and hedge funds guilty as sin of this very charge.

Which of course makes it obvious to any thoughtful person that this statute will be pursued selectively.

Not to even mention the fact that Al Queda is an invention of, if not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal Government of the United States of America. 

Here's a link to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explaining in one minute and twenty seconds how it is that "We" created Al Queda in the course of running the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

"We" of course meaning for purposes of this conversation, someone other than "Me".

Finally, dwell for a second on the likilhood of an extrememly profitable and useful undeclared war against an enemy that we support financially ever officially coming to an end.

So anyway, here's an eight minute or so interview with Chris Hedges who among others has sued the United States Government in order to have this piece of legislation overturned as unconstitutional, wherein he discusses the progress of his lawsuit.



Finally, you may wish to reflect on the absence of this issue from you evening news report.




Submitted by Roanman on Tue, 02/05/2013 - 17:26


Meet Kai.

Kai just went upside some guys head three times with a hatchet.

He pretty much had to, as he explains with extraordinarily profane eloquence.

Warning, the kid can barely go three words without tossing an F-bomb into the sentence.

So if you have an aversion to profanity, DO NOT VIEW THIS VID.

But in his defense, he just went upside some guys head three times with a hatchet, he's a little pumped.



I just love this kid to pieces, but I'm guessing he's more than a handfull.


Oopsies! ... again

Submitted by Roanman on Mon, 02/04/2013 - 06:27


From February 2, 2013 via Zero Hedge.

As always, click on the photo for the entire piece.


Super Bowl City Leads on Energy Efficient Forefront



While the Baltimore Ravens and San Francisco 49ers compete to hoist the Vince Lombardi trophy this weekend, eco-friendly fans and city leaders in New Orleans are competing to maximize sustainability practices to the fullest.

To make this the greenest Super Bowl, the New Orleans Host Committee has partnered with fans and the community to offset energy use across the major Super Bowl venues. The exterior of the Mercedes-Benz Superdome features more than 26,000 LED lights on 96 full-color graphic display panels, designed to wash the building in a spectrum of animated colors, patterns and images. The system draws only 10 kilowatts of electricity -- equivalent to the amount of energy used by a small home -- and the lights are expected to last for many years before needing replacement. 

Off the football field, New Orleans is embracing energy efficiency with help from the Energy Department. The city retrofitted four libraries using an integrative design approach -- adding motion sensor lights, energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, and upgrades to the building envelopes. These improvements helped cut the libraries’ energy costs by 30 percent and serve as a standard for other city-owned buildings. New Orleans streets feature more than 1,200 energy-efficient light fixtures. In addition to saving the city money on energy costs -- an estimated $70,000 annually -- the new lights help the city reduce routine maintenance due to their longer lifespan.

Embracing energy efficiency and renewable energy is having a profound impact on attracting developers and private industry in the New Orleans’ re-building efforts. The push to re-invent this destination city contributes to making Sunday’s game the greenest in Super Bowl history.


Somebody maybe should have told Beyonce' to dial it down a tad.


Some advice from The Department of Homeland Security

Submitted by Roanman on Sat, 02/02/2013 - 07:09



The Department of Homeland Security suggests that in the event you encounter an "active shooter" in your building, you seek to overpower him/her/it with a pair of scissors.

Which should pretty much guarantee that your headstone will read, 




I'm thinking a Glock 9mm in your desk drawer might be an infinitely better approach.


How's your colt?

Submitted by Roanman on Tue, 01/29/2013 - 09:33


We get the occasional request for an update on the colt.

We battled EPM most of the year and are finally starting to think we have it controlled.

He's gained about 80 lbs in the last 90 days and is finally starting to look like a horse.

So here he is working one of our new buffalo.  

We're currently pointing him at the Congress and maybe some of the other small futurities.

Apologies on the poor quality of the vid, it was taken with a cell phone, horseback, in the cold.



Not too shabby for a 3 year old in January, especially for a colt that took off 120 or so sick days during his two year old year.


The Department of "Homeland Security" places an order for 7,000 assault weapons

Submitted by Roanman on Tue, 01/29/2013 - 06:47


From The Blaze among other places.






The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.

Citing a General Service Administration (GSA) request for proposal (RFP), Steve McGough of reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.

The RFP describes the firearm as “Personal Defense Weapon (PDW) – 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.” Additionally, DHS is asking for 30 round magazines that “have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.”


Now who do you suppose it is that "Homeland Security" will be pointing these weapons at?

I'm thinking it'll be the residents of the "Homeland".



Subscribe to RSS