Richard Miniter spoke on the Dennis Miller show today, in terms of the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding terrorists housed at Gitmo which, essentially, would afford the terrorists at Guantanamo more rights than soldiers fighting for the United States of America who labor and work under the UCMJ: the Universal Code of Military Justice.

Miniter said that, by this decision, we have essentially guaranteed that terrorists will target the involved courts, the involved judges, the involved jails with focused violence and bombs in hopes of freeing, liberating, confusing or shattering the official entities involved with processing and determining the future of Islamofascists.

If you are an American citizen put in the brig, you are only provided an Article 32.

Terrorists now, under this ruling, have more rights than our own American soldiers serving this country.

Still, at Guantanamo, it will be years before these persons will get a hearing. Will they have to be read their Miranda Rights on the field of battle? It is possible that the answer is “yes.” As with the Miranda results in the 60’s, the chance equals a 500% increase in violence.

The SCOTUS pulled this ruling completely out of its ass.

Jurist.law wrote:

Shayana Kadidal [Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights]: “It was in February of 2002 that the Center for Constitutional Rights and our co-counsel brought the first habeas case in federal court on behalf of detainees held at Guantánamo. Yesterday, June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the part of the Military Commissions Act that attempted to block the federal courts from hearing the claims of our clients at Guantánamo was unconstitutional. The Court first determined that the individuals at Guantánamo have a right under the Suspension Clause to challenge their detention, basing its decision on fundamental separation of powers principles that informed the Framers understanding of habeas, rather than on the incomplete records of historical habeas cases. The pragmatic approach it took in deciding that the writ reaches Guantánamo still leaves space for similar challenges to U.S. detention facilities elsewhere in the world. The Court then found that the DTA statute failed to provide an adequate substitute for this constitutionally-required habeas review, because it did not make release from custody available as a remedy, offered no procedures for petitioners to present new, exculpatory evidence, and denied them the ability to bring the full range of legal challenges available in a habeas proceeding. As a result, the Court struck down the jurisdiction-stripping section of the MCA that deprived the petitioners of their constitutional right to habeas.

Some anonymous persons have recently challenged me to re-examine my stance on any number of issues. In the comment section of another blog where the topic was “Pentagon lawyers sought harsh interrogations” directly after 9/11, I responded:

Oooh, [blogger] is BAD, [blogger] is RACIST, BZ should disassociate from [blogger] — except, [blogger] is frequently CORRECT, such as THIS time.

The Left continuously attempts to use this country’s principles AGAINST us and itself, and this example is no exception. Do we not, I ask, hear time and again those who say “if we stoop to devices such as this, we become no better than ‘them’?”

I am all for adhering to the letter and SPIRIT of the law whenever possible. But I also posit: why do we abide the law yet provide more to those who do everything BUT adhere to any save their own? Geneva Convention? Uniforms? Clear markings? No targeting CIVILIANS?

And even so, Haditha? John Murtha and Charlie Rangel, who accused the soldiers without facts, held preconceived notions to fit an AGENDA? And the result, 8 marines charged = 7 charges dropped or acquitted or exonerated. Under the UCMJ.

And now, in consideration of the newest SCOTUS ruling: that those in custody at Guantanamo are to acquire legal benefits NOT EVEN AFFORDED TO OUR SOLDIERS who FIGHT for our country?

If you show WEAKNESS in front of a junkyard dog, the dog WILL attack — and our enemies are junkyard dogs fueled by a corrupted Islam.

So yes, I have re-examined my stances and determined that I will hold to them. I will hold to my apparently liberal comment policy. I will hold to allowing adults to make their own decisions. I will respond to those who situationally- or name-call/demean me: I shut you off. Whatever argument you chose to make becomes resultingly null to me.

I go here because I personally believe the stakes are critically high. I personally believe that we shall look back, during an Obama Administration (and further, more Left-leaning or oppressive administrations), as these current months being “The Good Old Days of Expression.”

Because I truly believe that our POLITICIANS and THOSE IN POWER in AMERICA are lagging seriously behind various Global trends. Do we not recall that Lincoln suspended habeus corpus — in nation-threatening circumstances? People have called me a NeoCon; I am, in fact, your worst O.C. — an Original Conservative.

Europeans are already discovering that unlimited immigration doesn’t work. That unified monetary systems don’t work. That socialist systems don’t work. That it’s imperative to create more and greater power systems and infrastructure to include nuclear. That cramming millions of people into centralized, concentrated and vertical housing and service systems doesn’t work. That ignoring the will of the majority in inconsideration of history doesn’t work.

Even once-liberal American authors are slowly coming around. From the 2008 Odd Thomas book, “Odd Hours” by Dean Koontz (pages 239, 240):

Those who choose to live criminal lives are not the brightest among us.

This truth inspires a question: If evil geniuses are so rare, why do so many bad people get away with so many crimes against their fellow citizens and, when they become leaders of nations, against humanity?

Edmund Burke provided the answer in 1795: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

I would only add this: It is also essential that good men and women not be educated and propagandized into believing that real evil is a myth and that all malevolent behavior is merely the result of a broken family’s or a failed society’s shortcomings, amenable to cure by counseling and by the application of new economic theory.

I suggest you read that quote, particularly the last paragraph, at least two more times.

There shall come a time, I fervently believe, when the difference between a Serf and a Free Man in America shall be an old Ruger Mini-14 in .223 caliber filled with illegal back-taped 30-round banana magazines (and many more in your pack), clasped in the hands of a civilian fighter familiar with the adage “front sight!” So shove me into your pigeonholes as you will.

I can only hope this occurs after my death because I don’t want to see it.

Already, the person thought slotted to become Barack Hussein Obama’s National Security Advisor, Richard Danzig (formerly served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton), made statements resulting in the United Kingdom’s Telegraph as writing:

Winnie the Pooh, Luke Skywalker and British football hooligans could shape the foreign policy of Barack Obama if he becomes US President, according to a key adviser.

You don’t treat the security of this nation with the most serious of deliberation, you guarantee a distinct future. Danzig? Germany? Nazis? Totalitarianism? Hello?

Say what you will about President Bush: this nation has NOT suffered a domestic act of terrorism for seven years.

Do the “Logical Extension” — after January of 2009.

I’ll be the first to admit: Discovery Channel’s “Deadliest Catch” has me hooked.

It involves the allure of the Individual Man’s Freedom.

Man Against Rogue Nature.

And freedom that, we all know, is diminished by society, purposely, year by year by year.

Women are drawn to the show because they enjoy the rogue-ish, buccaneer-like, independent Bad Boy fantasy visages of not only the Captains of the various boats (employing the power fantasy) but the crew members as well for their sense of self, centrism of purpose, simplicity and vulnerability.

Men are drawn to the show because they too enjoy their fantasies of power, independence, freedom, centrism of task, challenge, domination, strength.

They, we all, vicariously live the life of crab fishermen and their Captains over and above our 9-to-5 office jobs.

You can’t get any better, any more vicarious than that.

Yes, we look upon these guys as the last of the veritable American Cowboys, men who can make $48,000 or more in a month or less.

What we don’t see is:

The brain-glazing, back-breaking work, under the most horrible of numbing, freezing conditions. Taking place on a rocking vessel in massive seas, against the threat of rollover and capsizing.

Yes, massive amounts of money made — but also massive amounts of money spent. For the Captains or boat owners it’s nothing to spend $50,000 for a tune-up. $100,000+ for new engines. $250,000+ for a refit. Money comes in but, trust me, money goes out. Crab boats are holes in the water into which you throw copious amounts of cash. Then their are the permits. The licenses. The registrations. The inspections. Seasonal licenses are thousands of dollars.

There is also the time factor. The scheduling. The press and stress of finding the crab, laying down everything you’ve got and pulling up the most in the least amount of time; a season could be a few days long, a couple weeks at most. And then the forced return so you don’t miss your slot at the crab processor.

And finally, the killing fatigue. Yes, those men are amped as much as possible on cigarettes, Red Bull, coffee, caffeine. But you can bet — and of this you never hear or read — I’d wager prodigious amounts of methamphetamine as well.

Still and all, I must admit, Deadliest Catch has me hooked.

Yes, yes, I know some say I shouldn’t, but I actually do scrutinize the Lefty blogs I’ve listed in my blogroll to the right and, just last night, I came across an interesting post in the Daily Kos. An author named Devilstower posted:

The forces of status quo and inertia scream at any request for improvement. Energy plans that could get the US to 20% renewables by 2020 have been called unrealistic. Reducing our national carbon footprint by any percentage has been challenged as too expensive.

But according to a new report from the UN, by 2030 the world has another daunting task: a 50% increase in the production of food.

World food production must rise by 50 percent by 2030 to meet increasing demand, U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon told world leaders Tuesday at a summit grappling with hunger and civil unrest caused by food price hikes.

Oddly enough (as the Daily Kos clearly supports Barack Hussein Obama and can’t wait for Hillary Clinton to simply Go Away — imagine that!), Mr. Obama wants the United States to step up to the plate (as clearly, to his way of thinking, the US has never managed to do that before in recorded history — uh, perhaps his mental recorded history and that of his wife Michelle) and spend $845 billion on the Global Poverty Act which, of course, seeks to eradicate global hunger.

But wait, let’s vent the hypocrisy and get at the core of the Left’s philosophy.

If they truly wish to continue with their current philosophy, then what’s good for Europe, the United States and essentially any western culture (and more specifically, Anglos) should be equally pleasant and equitable for the rest of the world.

If we find ourselves challenged to produce 50% more food for the world (and you know that task shall only fall to the aforementioned western cultures) then perhaps what we truly need is a 50% future death rate for non-western cultures — to be fair. The Left is, after all, all about “fairness” is it not?

If massive amounts of abortion — not just tolerated abortion but enforced abortion — should the Left have its way — seem acceptable for the West then I submit those same principles should find themselves into the acceptable category for the rest of the planet.

Hey, if we can insist on forcing limited reproduction on Anglo cultures, then why not everyone else? Wouldn’t that solve the problem? Look at San Francisco and Seattle: there are 40% more dogs in those cities than children! How wondrous is that?

Further, think of not only the food saved but the future carbon emissions as well, you Religious Lefties!

Sounds like a win/win to me!

The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled along a strict liberal bent that the Guantanamo Bay detainees have the same rights as anyone else in custody in the United States to contest their detention before a judge, that they are due civil trials despite the fact that they are enemy combatants completely disavowing and abrogating any and all Geneva Convention rules, and seek the complete downfall of this nation and all Western culture.

Fred Thompson wrote, in response to the ruling:

Upon reading the opinion in Boumediene v Bush, one must conclude that the majority knew where they wanted to go and simply had to figure out how to get there. The trip was not a pretty one. How could it be when the justices seemingly wrote a map based on ideas cherry picked from over 400 years of established law and backfilled with justifications to create a new right for alien combatants that Americans themselves do not enjoy?

But, instead – as Justice Scalia pointed out in his dissent – they for the first time in our nation’s history, conferred a Constitutional right of habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad by our military forces in the course of an ongoing war – a broader right than has been given to our own citizens. The court majority did so acknowledging that they could find no precedent to confer such a right to alien enemies not within sovereign U.S. territory.

The majority had simply decided that prior courts had denied such rulings based on “practical considerations.” In other words in prior cases and prior wars it had just been too inconvenient to bestow the right of habeas corpus upon non-citizens in foreign jurisdictions. So, by focusing on what they saw as “practical” instead of those pesky court precedents based upon the issues of citizenship and foreign territory … and the Constitution … the majority reached the conclusion they wanted to, since what is practical is subjective. One can only ponder the state of our nation directed by the subjective instead of the Constitution.

Of course the Left took this ruling with great glee, despite the fact that they’d be the first to sport slit throats under an Islamic rule.

In that judicial vein, the Fornicalia Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unlawful Thursday (May 14), effectively leaving same-sex couples in America’s most populous state free to tie the knot in a landmark ruling.

As I wrote in that post:

Once again, the California Supreme Court shows residents that it couldn’t care less what 36-million Californians think (as Fornicalia approved Proposition 22 in the year 2000, on a 4,579,386 / 61.2% Yes votes — 2,897,689 / 38.8% No votes), by granting same sex marriage.

This issue will be, ONCE AGAIN, on the November ballot in Fornicalia and — trust me — will ultimately end up in SCOTUS. I predict with this: as voted SCOTUS on Guantanmo so may SCOTUS go in gay marriage.

Obama will skew SCOTUS even further to the Left. McCain may be a bit of a question-mark; Obama will be a given.

Imperial US courts.

Those who pay taxes, those who foot the federal, state and local bills, those who labor and sweat and cannot take the time to protest, who cannot sacrifice the time and the dollars required to stand in line carrying placards because they are consumed necessarily with providing for their children and families, these are the people the courts and politicians and administrations stand to alienate. To ignore.

And I say, as I wrote in the comment section of another blog: the more you remove rationality from the courts, the more you remove rationality from the various federal and state legislatures, the more you disavow the will of the People, the more you box in the electorate — then the more you almost guarantee that the only road left for protest is violent insurrection.

To those “in power:” You ignore The People to your own detriment.

You read it here first.