When we are detained, at least we’ll be held “on common ground”.

Are you making a list of what is at stake in the upcoming presidential election cycle?

This comes from Life Site with my emphases:

Constitutional experts: pro-life ‘terrorists’ could be permanently detained without trial under law

by Ben Johnson

Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:44 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Constitutional experts warn a new law that allows the president to permanently detain U.S. citizens without trial could be used against pro-life activists, who have already been defined as potential terrorists in documents by some government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.

This law can apply to pro-lifers, yes,” said John W. Whitehead, a constitutional attorney and founder of The Rutherford Institute. Whitehead told LifeSiteNews.com the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA) “would allow the military to show up at your door if you’re a ‘potential terrorist,’ and put you in military detention where seeing a lawyer is difficult.”

The NDAA, which President Barack Obama signed on December 31, allows the president to hold enemy combatants in military detention facilities without trial until the end of hostilities, if the person “substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” The law allows the president to determine which groups may be considered terrorists without judicial or congressional oversight, although Secretary of Defense is required to “regularly brief” Congress about “covered persons.”

Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, said the Obama administration specifically asked senators for the power to permanently detain American citizens without trial and to “remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section.”

Although Section 1022 states, “The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States,” many contend the law allows detention as an option for Americans captured abroad. Glenn Greenwald of Salon summarized, “For foreign nationals accused of being members of Al Qaeda, military detention is mandatory; for U.S. citizens, it is optional.”

Dana Cody, president and executive director of Life Legal Defense Foundation, said pro-life activists “already are classified as domestic terrorists on some FBI lists.” She said that on one occasion the manager of a Kansas City, Kansas, abortion clinic slammed her client, Mary Ann Sause, to the ground and told the peaceful pro-life demonstrator he was photographing her license plate so he could report her to the FBI.

Cody, who told LifeSiteNews.com her organization is currently studying the NDAA, added that the law states “enemy territory is anywhere.” The Senate rejected an amendment from Dianne Feinstein limiting permanent detention to those captured “abroad.”

“If it’s within the discretion of the government under the National Defense Authorization Act, of course it will be used by the government to intimidate and silence pro-life people, especially those who are in the public forum,” Cody said.

[...]

Read the rest there.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Dogs and Fleas, Emanations from Penumbras, GO TO CONFESSION, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Campus Telephone Pole, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to When we are detained, at least we’ll be held “on common ground”.

  1. “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” U.S. Constitution, Art. I, sec. 9.

  2. kab63 says:

    Four years ago I prayed every day that the Lord’s will be done in regards to our presidential election. This time I’m praying that Obama is defeated, and that one of the Catholic Republican candidates will be the man who beats him.

    I now believe the Lord listens more to those who pray from a place of conviction.

  3. First, they used RICO to redefine pro-life people as “racketeers.” Now they want to redefine us as “terrorists.” Next, they’ll just redefine us as “not human life.”

    [Non-human citizens, perhaps.]

  4. BaedaBenedictus says:

    Alas, Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who has condemned this dastardly law. 

    Meanwhile, I just watched Bill O’Reilly interview Rick Santorum. O’Reilly hasn’t confronted Santorum about his support for this attack on constitutional liberty, but he did confront Santorum about contraception. 

    He accused Santorum of supporting a ban on contraception; Santorum denied it, insisting that he opposes banning contraception but said that it is a state issue. He followed by saying, “Bill, you’re a Catholic…” 

    O’Reilly’s response was that contraception is (I quote) a “meat on Friday thing”, “not a dogma” but a “doctrine made by man”.

    No response by Santorum.

  5. I wonder lately how anyone could respond to O’Reilly sometimes, especially after an inane comment like that. A “meat on Friday thing,” is it? This law is unconstitutional on its face, and will inevitably be brought before the High Court. Those of us who write on prolife issues are not being threatened. Yet.

    This man has no intention of using this law against genuine terrorists. He has got to go.

  6. Random Friar says:

    We need only look at the RICO interpretations to feel the chill in the air.

  7. Random Friar says:

    If the time comes, I will be requesting that my prison suit be a seamless garment.

  8. filioque says:

    Yes, it will be challenged. How did the vote go on this one? It’s interesting the Sen. Feinstein tried to limit it to overseas arrests, which would have protected pro-lifers in the U.S. She is no friend of ours so maybe she has some basic constitutional sense.

    Unfortunately a Supreme Court case could well depend on how Justice Kennedy votes — unpredictable. So this act should be nailed to the back of every member of Congress who voted for it and used to defeat him.

  9. Where anti-semitism lies, anti-Catholicsm is not far behind.

    Regardless of what Rep. Paul currently claims, racist, anti-semitic rantings went out under his byline and in his newsletter over a period of many, many years.

    I would respectfully recommend than any Catholic supporter of Rep. Paul do a thorough study of nativism in the United States. You won’t like what you see.

  10. Charivari Rob says:

    Since this is described as the NDAA for FY 2012, it sounds as though there’s one each year. Perhaps it should be asked if this year’s version is any different from those signed in previous years.

  11. moon1234 says:

    Yes the NDAA comes up for a vote each year. Bush eliminated Posse Comitatus for a year. It just so happens that was the same year he deployed troops during Katrina. Armed troops that were filmed by ABC stating they would shoot Americans if they were ordered/had to.

    This whole terrorist boogyman thing is the EXACT same way that a country in Europe whipped up there people into supporting a genocidal maniac. The only difference was then the boogyman was the Jews and Catholics now it is the scary Islam people.

    Ron Paul has it right. Anyone who believes that he is a racist knows nothing of Ron Paul. When those letters were written they were done without Paul’s knowledge. It would be similar to the recent publication about a central world bank by certain group in Rome recently. By your comparison the Holy Father must be calling for a one world government right? It is his fault for not proof-reading EVERYTHING the vatican puts out.

    EVERY other candidate other than Ron Paul wants war with Iran. The whole notion of another war is just insane. The Russians wanted us all dead during the cold war, it didn’t happen. Imagine if any of the republican candidates other than Paul would have been president during the Cuban Missel Crisis? It would have been a disaster.

    Kennedy was widely criticized at the time by a LOT of people for not attacking Cuba and the Soviet Union. Kennedy made the correct decision. I believe we are alive today because of it.

    The whole DNAA suspension of the 4th ammendment is chilling. How could someone who swore an oath to the constitution even think of such a thing. That should give you an idea of the mentaility of current members of congress who voted for this.

    Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He has said numerous times that if congress votes to attack Iran, he would follow their lead, but THEY would need to vote to declare war. He would NOT just order a “kinetic military action” in the country like Obama did in Lybia.

    This action of Obama by signing this bill shows that he wishes to be king. And that is the power he now has. The founders of this country would be ashamed as should every peace loving American.

  12. Stephen Matthew says:

    Modern day Alien and Sedition Act or worse…

  13. Fr Deacon Daniel says:

    Hope and chains…

  14. Kerry says:

    The blogs ‘lawfareblog’ and ‘opiniojuris’ both posted and discussed the NDAA recently. I will post here only a snip from a post at the latter, “notwithstanding the President’s view, which we share, that “the prison at Guantánamo Bay undermines our national security…” I think their opinions are thereby colored by those three words, “which we share”. If Americans are to be snatched from sidewalks and streets, it will not be lawyers doing the snatching, but men with black hoods over their faces, who can shoot people to death in their homes and quickly later local attorneys general declare these “justified shootings”. Cf. Jose Guerna. At such a point, one must decide what to do.
    Re: Jeff Cooper “Not long ago it was easy to tell who the bad guys were. They carried Kalashnikovs. Now it is much more complicated, but one thing is sure – any man who covers his face and packs a gun is a legitimate target for any decent citizen.”

  15. snoozie says:

    “Next, they’ll just redefine us as “not human life.””

    Wasn’t that the Nazi’s ultimate argument against the Jews?….chilling.

    How does Obama keep getting away with exploding the Constitution? If this (and his other activities of the week) aren’t impeachable offences, what on earth is? And where, oh where, is the stalwart heart who will finally rise from the muck and state, “um…I can clearly see the emperor’s butt….”? Oh yeah….that’s right, one just dropped out of the race because nobody would vote for her. A wicked and perverse generation indeed, and Babylon advances.

  16. Papabile says:

    As one who has been involved with the pro-life movement dating all the way back to the Witchita Operation Rescue actions in 88, AND as a long term Congressional staffer who worked almost exclusively on the annual NDAA for over 10 years, specifically concentrating on detainee policy for about 3 years, I see absolutely no way in which this provision can be used against pro-lifers.

    Some have decided it could be misconstrued to be used against pro-lifers. I doubt it. It is specifically targeted at those citizens who are actively engaged in armed conflict against the United States.

    The State Department has already had the right to strip them of citizenship, but that takes time, and if one is to interrogate them, one needs the exemption.

    If people are worried about this being used against pro-lifers, they should be worried about the over 50 year old law that allows State Department to strip citizenship.

    This is way overblown.

  17. letchitsa1 says:

    Every single one of our state’s representatives voted in favor of this bill. All I have to say right now is shame on them.

  18. avecrux says:

    I started compiling some information in 2009 after this article was published by CNA on April 14, 2009 – excerpt here:

    The nine-page document was sent to police and sheriff’s departments across the country on April 7 under the headline, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” The report is unclassified, but is accompanied by a warning that says it “contains information that may be exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act.”?The report was prepared by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch of the Department of Homeland Security and claims it was “coordinated with the FBI.”?“Rightwing extremists,” the document says, “have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.”?Nevertheless, according to the report, the combination of a prolonged economic downturn, the election of the first African American President and the return of many veterans with “combat skills” could create an environment similar to the early 90′s, which lead to the Oklahoma City bombing.?The report describes “Rightwing extremism” broadly as “those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”?Under the title “Revisiting the 1990s,” the report claims that “paralleling the current national climate, rightwing extremists during the 1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members.”?“Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage.”?

    At Notre Dame, May 17 of the same year, Pre. Obama had said in regard to abortion:

    “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.?Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.”

    Reasonable?
    Weeks after, we have a crazy guy who kills George Tiller. He was not known at all in pro-life circles, and his ridiculous,violent act undermined years and years of legal efforts to shut him down. (Of course the head of HHS, Catholic Kathleen Sebelius, was directly involved in the Tiller situation as Governor of Kansas).

    President Obama immediately responds May 31st, assuming the abortion link to the killing:

    President Barack Obama also expressed outrage over the killing. “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence,” Obama said.

    And what do we see from the Department of Justice web site, for immediate release, June 9, 2009:

    The Department’s Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas have launched a federal investigation into federal crimes in connection with the murder of Dr. George Tiller. The federal probe will consist of a thorough review of the evidence and an assessment of any potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) or other federal statutes. The federal investigation will be conducted in close coordination with the Office of the Sedgwick County, Kan., District Attorney, and the state’s ongoing murder prosecution will have the full support of federal investigators.
    The FACE Act was enacted by Congress in 1994 to establish federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for violent, obstructionist or damaging conduct affecting reproductive health care providers and recipients.
    “The Department of Justice will work tirelessly to determine the full involvement of any and all actors in this horrible crime, and to ensure that anyone who played a role in the offense is prosecuted to the full extent of federal law,” said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We will conduct a thorough investigation that will complement and build upon the fine work of the Sedgwick County District Attorney and other state and local law enforcement agencies.”
    Following the May 31, 2009, murder, the Attorney General directed the U.S. Marshals Service to offer protection to appropriate people and facilities around the country. The U.S. Marshals Service has moved expeditiously to implement the Attorney General’s directive with the assistance of the reproductive health care service providers and organizations throughout the country.
    In an effort to coordinate the federal government’s efforts in response to the shooting of Dr. Tiller, the Civil Rights Division recently convened a meeting of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers, an interagency law enforcement working group that includes attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division, and law enforcement officials from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. This task force was established more than a decade ago to commit resources to the reduction of threats and violence against health care providers on a national level.?

    So you have this crazy guy in jail – and here is a report from June 7, 2009 – of what he had to say for himself:

    The man charged with killing a prominent abortion provider claimed Sunday that more violence is possible as long as the medical procedure is allowed to continue, giving his warning in calls that also focused on complaints about his treatment in jail.
    Scott Roeder, being held on charges of first-degree murder and aggravated assault in the killing of Dr. George Tiller one week ago, called The Associated Press from the Sedgwick County jail.
    Tiller, whose Wichita clinic was among only a few in the U.S. performing third-trimester abortions, was shot while serving as an usher at the Lutheran church he attended. “I know there are many other similar events planned around the country as long as abortion remains legal,” Roeder said. He would not elaborate.
    Tiller’s clinic in Wichita had been a target of regular demonstrations by abortion opponents. Most were peaceful, but his clinic was bombed in 1986 and he was shot in both arms in 1993. In 1991, a 45-day “Summer of Mercy” campaign organized by the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue drew thousands of protesters to Wichita, and there were more than 2,700 arrests.
    Jim Cross, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, did not have an immediate comment Sunday on Roeder’s statement.
    The Justice Department opened an investigation Friday to see if the gunman who killed Tiller had accomplices. The DOJ said its Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney’s office in Kansas will seek to determine if the killing violated a 1994 law creating criminal penalties for violent or damaging conduct toward abortion providers and their patients.

    Later on, we get documentaries in the mainstream media showing Tiller as a hero.
    BTW – someone should tell Alan Colmes that Dr. Tiller used to have memorial services (with commemorative keepsakes, photos, even post-death “baptisms” by the abortion clinic “chaplain”) for the babies who were killed at his clinic – much like Rick Santorum (except the Santorum’s baby died – he wasn’t killed).

  19. jhayes says:

    The article from “LifeSite” doesn’t identify which section of the bill (now law) their claims are based on. If it s Section 1021, the President’s signing statement says that he thinks the whole Section is unneessary because it doesn’t change anything compared to the law that has been in place since 2001.

    The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists….

    Section 1021 affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note). This section breaks no new ground and is unnecessary. The authority it describes was included in the 2001 AUMF, as recognized by the Supreme Court and confirmed through lower court decisions since then. Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not “limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any “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.” My Administration strongly supported the inclusion of these limitations in order to make clear beyond doubt that the legislation does nothing more than confirm authorities that the Federal courts have recognized as lawful under the 2001 AUMF. Moreover, I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/12/31/statement-president-hr-1540

    The signing statement includes similar objections to other provisons of the law.
    A

  20. ContraMundum says:

    The problem here is the ascendancy of nominalism. We’ve spent the past several decades getting around the declaration of war being reserved to the Congress by calling wars by different names, such as “police actions”. (Lately, even that pretense has fallen away, since politicians have noticed that the public does not care a **** about what the Constitution says about war.) Lately (over the past 10+ years), we have circumvented all the positive law and common law about arrests by renaming them detentions. That bit of newspeak disposed nicely of the rights of the “detainee”.

    Just don’t be stupid enough to think that if the police refer to you as a “person of interest”, that means they aren’t planning to arrest you. Or maybe “detain” you.

  21. Bryan Boyle says:

    Is anyone REALLY surprised?

    The enemy is inexorable, if nothing else. If you believe ANYTHING that comes out of ANY politician’s mouth of either party, herded by the most relentless pro-abortion (and that is saying a lot, when compared to others in his party…and as compared to the previous occupant of the White House from the same party…) leader we’ve ever seen and faithfully reported upon and spun by the MSM…then, well…I really don’t know what to say.

    The fact that they have to make any statement or issue ‘talking points’ that they would not consider using this against ‘socially disobedient’ activities such as pro-life protests or leaders means that they HAVE considered it, it’s just that the population has not been inoculated enough to accept it yet. Posse Comitatus? Dead. You may not see our armed forces firing on civilians yet, or the guy next door disappearing into the Nacht und Nebel system…but the basic foundation is there, enabled by the Useful Idiots in a legislature that is impotent and compliant.

    Pray hard. The enemy is not finished yet. Unfortunately, we as a collective are complicit in handing them the power to do so…

  22. randomcatholic says:

    Anyone who has read my posts on here knows that I am in many ways a “liberal” on tons of issues, and that I frequently take issue with Fr. Z on political stuff (especially economic justice.) I am not one to support everything this blog says.

    Save here.

    This is a VERY serious threat. I cannot believe that in the United States we are passing legislation that will infringe on our basic rights and freedoms, such as assembly and speech. This is incredibly dangerous stuff.

    We have to defeat Obama. I care deeply about 1) collective bargaining, 2) stopping globalization, 3) protecting the environment, 4) ending corporate personhood (I could go on and on).

    BUT NONE OF THAT STUFF MATTERS if I don’t even enjoy a right to LIFE. And being an American MEANS NOTHING if I don’t have the right to speak my mind and publish as I see fit.

  23. irishgirl says:

    Scary, indeed.
    I support the right to life, and am against abortion, but I’ll stay on the sidelines and in the background. I was once sued by a local abortionist in the early 1980s. All I ever did in front of his ‘clinic’ was pray my Rosary-I never approached anyone going in or out! But I got sued anyway!
    We won the case, however; but when the lawyer who represented me and several other pro-lifers wrote a letter and demanded money for ‘services rendered’, I took it to the local right-to-life committee and begged them to help me. It ended up that the committee paid half, and I paid the other half. But after that, I swore I would never become an ‘activist’ in the pro-life movement-I’ll either stay in the background, or be in a larger group of people, as I did in 1999-2000 when our previous Bishop did prayer walks and the Rosary in front of the local Planned Parenthood.
    Does this new law mean that all those who march in the annual ‘March For Life’ in Washington are at risk of being ‘detained’ and stripped of their US citizenship?
    One more reason for kicking Obama out of the Presidency come this November…..

  24. chcrix says:

    Let us not forget that the powers codified in the bill were already claimed by the pseudo-conservative administration of George W. Bush. The Republican/Democrat distinction is a charade.

    Note to the USCCB: Modern governments brook no divided loyalties. They claim the right to go anywhere, do anything, prosecute anyone, and administer any punishment under any circumstances that pleases the (small d) democratic state – even if that state is in fact run by a bunch of oligarchs scarcely distinguishable from those that ran Russia under the politbureau. The Church must be independent of the government. This means no government contracts.

  25. wmeyer says:

    The major point of disagreement between parties is at what rate government growth can continue. Both seem to favor positive numbers here. Both are obviously wrong.

    The end point of the nanny state is totalitarianism. Obama is not the author, he is merely an unsubtle manifestation of the trend.

  26. josephx23 says:

    Before we start raising the alarm with these paranoid fantasies about men in black hoods kidnapping pro-life activists, let’s remember what happened in September 2001. That’s no Emmanuel Goldstein, people – Islamist terror is a real problem. Ask our brothers and sisters in Nigeria, who know what real persecution looks and feels like.

  27. Johnno says:

    Everyone ought to consider other possibilities:

    What is there to stop tragic situations or alleged false flag terror operations from setting in motion events to jail Pro-Lifers and other activists against same sex marriage?

    All it’ll take is one person with enough conviction to do the wrong thing, or even the possibility of evil people conspiring to set up pro-lifers, and have an ‘incident’ take place, damaging enough to create enough public furor and hasty government action from using these laws to wholesale jail anyone involved in pro-life groups or otherwise.

    America rounded up its ethnic Japanese citizens when Pearl Harbor was attacked. You bet America is capable of it again under different sets of circumstances targeting a different set of people. Heck it’s par for the course in many little ways already…

    If you haven’t considered that possibility. You really should! Don’t be naive enough to think it could never happen! Just look at history throughout Socialist and Communist countries! Suspicion alone will get you in trouble. And even if you’re not doing anything, excuses will have to be made up to persecute you in order to justify the existence of the many watchdog groups and totalitarian regime led offices to justify their continued existence. Just ask the Jews. And the errors of Communism continue to spread and spread…

    You have murder and sexual immorality disguised as ‘rights’, relativism and falsehood disguised as truth and science, war as peacekeeping, intolerance as tolerance, religious bigotry as religious neutrality,Totalitarianism and Communism disguised as democracy and freedom, it’s all snowballing out of control… Similarly the situation is also bad in Russia with regards to their own elections and morality.

    Given these precedents were begun by both Republicans and Democrats, Americans needs to wake up to the fact that their government is hijacked, and democracy is a farce that was always inevitably doomed to lead them to failure due to the fact that human beings are sinful and willingly blind and like sheep can be led by ill advised and evil shepherds. The failure never happens all at once. It will build up over time. They’ll trick you into having to choose between the lesser of two evils, and thus a little evil will gain ground more and more, and evil is plenty patient.

    This is precisely what the devil does. He offers you two options. On one hand a lesser evil. On the other hand a greater evil. He doesn’t expect you to pick the greater evil, and he’s perfectly fine with you selecting the lesser evil, all the time letting you console yourself with the idea that at least you aren’t doing anything so bad… a little wrong is enough to get you sent to hell. But the devil is a liar! He doesn’t tell you about the third option. Which is to ignore both his offers and walk the path of holiness by denying yourself either option and thus securing your soul.

    The devil’s modus operandi is best illustrated during election time. Of course you do not sin by following your conscience to deter greater evil by having no recourse but to elect a lesser evil when you desire neither, but that is how he ultimately wins in the end.

    But of course, our current world government is a false one. Democracy only an illusion that power comes from the bottom up, when in fact the illusion would always erode in actuality, but not in people’s mindsets, to the extent that now you have people in the Church thinking they can democratically change morality and the law of God. The world was always destined to be run by an immovable regime, the irony is, that just like Israel rejected God as they king and begged for Saul, we ourselves would elect this regime into place overtime. But that regime is too late as the world is already under a monarchy it must answer to. A divine one under Christ the King to whom every knee must bend, and our Holy Mother, the Queen of Heaven. Only they can help us. And the Catholic Church as the King’s authoritative representation on Earth is the only institution capable of petitioning Our Lord and His Mother to aid us before things get worse.

    I pray that the age of democracy comes to an end, and an age of a true Catholic Monarchy can begin. But people will only learn in light of the sufferings of history, once the natural course of democracy has them lead them into ruin. And being humbled are prepared to accept it.

  28. tealady24 says:

    Why was he allowed to sign such a bill on New Year’s Eve when no one was watching or caring? We know what this president is about; many pols, including McCain (who co- sponsored this mess) and many running on the gop ticket are highly in favor of moves such as these.
    This country has for decades moved away from its original intent.

    There is no recourse here but prayer! I think we should all say a rosary a day, (aside from other rosarys we say daily), every day until election day, for the survival of this country! It’s not hopeless, but it is dire.

  29. ContraMundum says:

    @josephx23

    By all means, let us indeed remember what happened in September 2001. Let us in particular remember that this has not a d***ed thing to do with the measures being discussed, although a certain type of paranoid fantasy might color it that way — the type that mistakes the TV series “24″ for real history, or that thought the Bush administration must have had secret knowledge of Iraqi WMDs. Let us remember that the Department of Homeland Security did not stop the Shoe Bomber — other passengers did. Let us remember that the Department of Defense did not stop the Underwear Bomber — other passengers did. Let us remember that the policy on September 11, 2011 was for the passengers and crew to cooperate with hijackers, which is the reason 3 of the flights took down the two towers and damaged the Pentagon. The passengers of Flight 93 were not able to save themselves, because initially there had been the recommended cooperation, but because they took matters into their own hands the terrorists never reached their intended targets.

  30. Bryan Boyle says:

    ContraMundum: and your last statement is is one of the key things we should remember. There’s a lesson re: sitting back and enjoying the ride or standing up and trying to make things right when it’s all going downhill in a handbasket. We seem to have lost that sturdiness of purpose as a society, preferring instead to ‘let someone else do it’.

    Todd Beamer and the rest of the people on Flight 93 went to their reward (as they perhaps would have in any case…) trying to make a difference. Not denigrating the sacrifice of the other souls on the other flights. But, 93 is a great example of good men (and women) doing something to prevent the triumph of evil.

  31. rodin says:

    You have changed your forward by email program to a system that does not work on my computer. Can you change back?

    Thank you.

  32. josephx23 says:

    @Contramundum, the official rationale behind military detainment of US citizens is that it helps in combating terrorists. Terrorists like members of Al Qaeda. You know, terrorists like the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I understand that you may not share the mainstream view that Islamist terrorists were responsible for the attacks, and it sounds like you would like to see a well-regulated militia of non-specialist air passengers take on the responsibility of gathering intelligence and defending our nation against its Islamist enemies. But the view that these statesmen are losing face just so that they can put Randall Terry in the slammer is laughable, and the idea elsewhere voiced in this combox that Islamism is a “bogeyman” isn’t even funny, given what defenseless Jews, Christians, women, and children endure at the hands of Islamist extremists every day.

  33. Tom T says:

    I love the picture at the begining of the article. Bout says it all. It is after all one of the reasons we are all here today discussing these problems. You honestly mean to tell me they did`nt see this coming? Pax