Skip to content

Month: July 2018

2018 Candidates for State-Wide Offices: New Hampshire

So far I have written about the 2018 candidates for Massachusetts, Utah, and New Jersey. It looks like Willard Romney did win that primary race in Utah for U.S. Senate. I hope the people of Utah can take a serious look at the Libertarian Party candidate, Craig Bowden. If you really believe in free markets and freedom of association, abolishing victimless crime laws, removing the U.S. from the UN and NATO and withdrawing troops and closing foreign military bases, then consider voting for Bowden and not the socialist globalist warmonger drug warrior Willard Romney.

But now I want to take a look at New Hampshire. Obviously I’ve been trying to promote Libertarian Party (or otherwise libertarian) candidates when I can. In New Hampshire, the “Live Free or Die State,” libertarians seem to be emphasizing bitcoin and marijuana legalization. But we need libertarians who “hate the State,” as Murray Rothbard would say. Libertarians who recognize the truth that the State is a criminal organization, especially the centralized racket in Washington.

The state primary election is September 11th. Incumbent Republican Gov. Chris Sununu, son of former New Hampshire governor (and George H.W. Bush Chief of Staff) John Sununu, is running unopposed.

But, regardless of which candidate will be the Libertarian Party nominee, there are big reasons to vote for the LP nominee, rather than either of the two Government Party statists.

Sununu is said to be a “conservative,” good on eliminating many regulations and reducing taxes, and good on “constitutional carry.” But he definitely turns outright socialist, in my view, on “increased funding by $57 million for the developmentally disabled community,” “greater healthcare access for veterans,” and “increased funding to provide better care for seniors,” according to his campaign website. And he’s pandering to Democrats on Medicaid expansion.

However, on the freedom side, Sununu signed a bitcoin-friendly bill, exempting Bitoin from money transfer regulations, according to Reason.

And he signed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana.

But what about other drugs? We know that drug prohibition in all forms doesn’t stop people from getting drugs. In fact, prohibition creates a black market that contributes to increased violent crimes associated with the underground drug market.

There is a moral case for drug freedom. And I don’t do drugs, by the way. I don’t even drink. But the government has no role in telling people what they may or may not put into their own bodies. If so, then the government owns your body, not you.

But here is where Sununu has gone waaayyy off the rails, and not only is he not “libertarian,” but he can’t even claim to be a conservative.

Sununu signed the “transgender rights” bill. So obviously, Sununu doesn’t grasp the importance of private property rights and freedom of association (and freedom of non-association).

And, as I wrote in this article, one can make a case (albeit a non-libertarian one) to ban discrimination based on race or gender even on privately owned property, but when it comes to this LGBT stuff, we’re talking about lifestyles, sexuality, and personality issues. The gender identity issue has nothing to do with how one was born such as one’s race or one’s sex. And as I wrote in that article, the social activists are working their way into attempting to force acceptance via legal compulsion, and now forcing access into others’ private lives and private property. So, with the LGBT activists, it’s getting personal, and much more intrusive!

Sununu stated that “If we really want to be the ‘Live Free or Die’ state, we must ensure that New Hampshire is a place where every person, regardless of their (sic) background, has an equal and full opportunity to pursue their dreams and to make a better life for themselves and their families.” Well, sure, Gov, but not on MY property. But he says no, I must associate with or allow onto my property someone who is confused about himself and his gender, or who rejects the gender as he was born and who claims to be someone of the opposite gender. I may NOT discriminate against this person.

In other words, Sununu believes that someone has a “civil right” to force others to associate with or allow onto one’s property those who are deeply confused and living a life of a lie.

The bottom line for me is (and the true libertarian answer to that is) that people have a right to discriminate for or against others and for any reason on their own private property. It doesn’t matter if the property is someone’s home or someone’s business, a hotel or restaurant or place of employment. If it is privately owned, then it is privately owned. It is not public property. No one has a right of access onto other people’s private property. Except they do have that right of access, via “civil rights” laws.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 should only have addressed public property and government-run functions, not private property and privately owned businesses and functions.

Now, regarding the libertarian non-aggression principle, which side is being the aggressor in these cases? The private property owner or business owner who doesn’t want to hire someone or doesn’t want to allow males in his gym showers designated for females? Or the rejected possible worker or gym customer who gets the armed force of government to compel the businessman to allow him in? We know the answer to that question. And that’s the bottom line.

The 1964 “civil rights” Act began the process of officially making private property really public property. It is only privately owned on paper.

And to say that someone’s reasons for discriminating against others are relevant, then we are really talking about thought crimes.

Sadly, two Libertarian Party state representatives voted for the transgender “civil rights” bill. One was Joseph Stallcop, who was elected in 2016 as a Democrat, and switched to Libertarian last year. The other one was Brandon Phinney. At the end of this post, I wrote this about Brandon Phinney:

The Reason article states that the new LP member, Brandon Phinney, works in the “Carroll County Department of Corrections.” Yech. You know, Brandon, it would help the libertarian cause if so-called, self-described “libertarians” didn’t have actual employment by the government. Especially being a part of the whole apparatus that locks up innocent people for disobedience, i.e. disobeying unjust laws inflicted by the nanny state, the police state, and the regulatory state. Can you find something less loathsome?

So, do those two “libertarians” and LP members in the New Hampshire state legislature want to be like Gary Johnson, who wants to force a Christian baker to have to do extra labor to serve the lesbian couple? And, like Gary Johnson, do they want to force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi wedding cake?

But I digress. This is about the governor’s race right now.

Speaking of transgender-related thought-crimes legislation, Gov. Chris Sununu signed into law a ban of “conversion therapy” for transgender or sexual orientation. This is major league stuff, and I can’t believe that a governor of the “Live Free or Die” state is doing this. This law says that if a teenager is confused about his sexual orientation or gender identity and wants to become more what he think he should be, and wants to seek guidance from a professional therapist, then he may not do that, and the therapist can be disciplined by the state’s licensing authority.

In this chapter, ‘conversion therapy’ means practices or treatments that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.  Conversion therapy shall not include counseling that provides assistance to a person undergoing gender transition, or counseling that provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person’s coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual-orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as such counseling does not seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”

Thought crimes much, Gov. Sununu? Micromanaging and central planning much?

The social activists’ are succeeding in their push to legally force people into acceptance of certain lifestyles and acceptance of other people’s personal issues that others shouldn’t have to accept if they don’t want to!

And why did Sununu sign into law a bill that says private campgrounds and hotels must pay out $500 per bingo game or $2,000 for more then one game per day? “Shall not exceed”? Who is the state government to tell private bingo game venues they may not pay out more than a certain government-designated amount?

He might as well be a Democrat. Too bad he’s running unopposed in the primary.

Like most Democrats, the two Democrat candidates for governor, Steve Marchand and Molly Kelly, are typical Democrats. Think Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. You get the idea.

But there are two Libertarian Party candidates for governor.

Jilletta Jarvis is good on gun rights, asset forfeiture, and being against sending New Hampshire National Guard to the border. However, she is vague on immigration and seems to be against sanctuary cities. On education she seems to support the continuation of government schools, not a word about privatization and decentralization in education. And finally, she wants to “reform” occupational licensing for “fair and equal opportunity for entrepreneurship to all people.” “Reform”? Do you mean abolish licensure?

But not a mention of the libertarian non-aggression principle, self-ownership, private property rights, voluntary exchange, freedom of thought and conscience, or freedom of association there.

We need a radical who will really defend the life and liberty of the individual, as the Libertarian Party did in 1984 and 1988.

And Aaron Day, a former Republican, is the other LP candidate. Day has had several controversies, including being sued for defamation in his participation in displaying billboards which called three businessmen “heroin dealers” and extortionists. In the lawsuit, Day apparently settled the suit for over $1 million. His alleged co-conspirator Michael Gill, who didn’t settle, was a no-show at the trial, and then the jury decided to award plaintiffs $274.5 million for the billboard defamation.

Day may also have contributed to U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte’s losing her reelection bid to Maggie Hassan. Given just how bad Ayotte is on just about every issue, even though Hassan is a far-left loony, then I am glad Day was able to do that, if it’s true.

Aaron Day is apparently running against Sununu mainly because of the Medicaid expansion issue, but also the transgender rights issue.

Day’s views are generally libertarian. But Jarvis, not so much, according to the Live Free or Die Alliance.

But which one of the LP candidates could possibly have a chance to bring libertarian views to the attention of New Hampshire voters (and maybe even oust Sununu)? Day, with all his controversial baggage? Or Jarvis, who seems to be vague on some issues? Who knows?

New Hampshire is one of only 7 states in which the state’s attorney general is appointed by the governor, state legislature or state supreme court. So with the election of governor you get, at least in new Hampshire, the governor’s own crony for attorney general. Is there a Judge Napolitano in New Hampshire?

No Justification for Trade Retaliation

Economist Donald Boudreaux has this article on trade retaliation being unjustified and unjust. Here is an excerpt:

Do producers really have rights — property entitlements — to at least some minimum volume of consumer demand for their outputs? The answer given by Anglo-American common law has long been a clear no.  Under this law, economic competition is neither tortious nor criminal. Indeed, far from being wrong for producer Smith to lower his prices or to improve his product quality in ways that result in economic losses for producer Jones, such competitive actions by producer Smith are positively praiseworthy.

Examined from the perspective of consumers, under the law consumers are free to spend their incomes as they choose, and to change how they spend their incomes. And while businesses are free to offer for sale new goods and services, and to make their existing product offerings more attractive to consumers, businesses are not presumed to be entitled to any minimum volume of consumer demand.

Quite the contrary. The recognition is widespread that each and every business is always at risk of not succeeding, of losing sales, and even of going bankrupt. Implied in this recognition is the absence of any obligation on the part of consumers to spend their money in ways that improve or protect the economic well-being of particular producers.

Dr. Boudreaux makes a very good case for consumer sovereignty.

Contrary to Donald Trump and his government-control-obsessed anti-market trade restrictions, the free market provides the best conditions for a higher standard of living.

PC Government Media the Racist Pots Calling the Kettle Black

David Gornoski has this post on how the “PC media,” a.k.a. mainstream media, a.k.a. government media, projects their racism onto Ron Paul. It appears that a staff member of Dr. Paul placed a (what some people believe to be) racist cartoon in a tweet by Dr. Paul.

What Gornoski points out is that Dr. Paul has spent a lifetime opposing the racist drug war (in which a much higher proportion of minorities are put in prison for drug-related “offenses”), opposing the wars and bombings of predominantly Muslim countries, and opposing collectivism in all forms. Racism is a form of collectivism. But the government media have not spent any time at all condemning the wars, the drug war, and so on.

Gornoski writes that “Politically correct media is a minority oppressing cartoon – shilling for inflation-financed wars and a nanny state backed by imprisonment and fines. These media-enabled policies harm minorities and the poor the most.”

People Have a Right to Discriminate

Laurence Vance has this article on discrimination, referring to the recent Supreme Bureaucrats’ gay wedding cake decision. And he says that leftists are hypocrites when they oppose discrimination like the Christian baker refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian couple, but the leftists then going on to support a restaurant owner kicking out Sarah Sanders.

I’ll have more to say about this anti-discrimination stuff soon in my next state-wide elections profile in which I have found one political hack candidate pandering to the LGBT activists — and he’s a conservative Republican!

People Are Worried About the Supremes Overturning Roe v. Wade

In the discussions over who will Trump’s nominee be to replace Anthony Kennedy on the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems that Trump and others are pandering on the abortion issue. Oooh, I won’t ask candidate if s/he might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and so on. “Precedent is important,” and all that. No, precedent is not important, because so many past cases were wrongly decided, including Roe.

Of course Roe v. Wade should be overturned. In that decision, 7 robed bureaucrats decided that the “High” Court was authorized by the U.S. Constitution to micromanage every stage of development of a human being, at least from conception up to birth. This “precedent” thus gives the State the authority to micromanage every stage of any human being’s growth and development, right?

So, in this older post, I wrote,

I’ve seen references to “personhood,” “viability,” “sentience,” and “consciousness, “ and I have some questions.

What is the viability of a born baby? If baby is left alone for a particular amount of time, one cannot survive for very long, because at that early stage of development one is dependent on one’s caretakers for feeding. The same can be said of a 2-year-old, maybe even older children, although the older the child, the more able one is to go out and seek food, unless one is locked inside and can’t get out. Is there a difference between the viability of a born individual and an unborn individual (at whatever stage of development)?

What about “sentience” and “consciousness?” How do we know whether or not a two-month-old “fetus” or a 2-day-old “fetus” can have any physical sensation or conscious awareness? If it is important whether or not that individual has sentience or consciousness in considering whether that individual has any right to life and liberty, and self-ownership, then, what about a born human being or a grown adult who has a neurological disorder and has no “sentience” or who is in a “persistent vegetative state” and has no consciousness, but is still “alive” (or can be kept alive via artificial means)?

I can’t say for sure that a human life begins at conception (although I believe that to be the case and have believed that for 20 years now), but I can sure say without any doubt that, IF a human life begins at conception, then self-ownership begins at conception. And IF that actually were the case, then those of the female gender would have an extra burden–and responsibility–that those of the male gender just don’t have.

In Roe v. Wade, the two dissenting Justices wrote, “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment.” Exactly. But many, many people are sooo worried that the decision might be overturned. If it is, then let the states handle that. If one state makes abortion illegal, then girls and women who want to kill their offspring can go into a different state that keeps it legal. I know, I refer to such actions harshly. And that’s because I’m not going to whitewash these issues or see as valid our culture’s dehumanizing of pre-born human beings in order to have the “freedom” to extinguish them out of convenience. In our culture today, we see powerful groups dehumanizing other human beings and acting against them. Not good.

Benefits of the American Revolution

Economics professor Jeffrey Rogers Hummel says that a strong case can be made “that without the American Revolution, the condition of Native Americans would have been no better, the emancipation of slaves in the British West Indies would have been significantly delayed, and the condition of European colonists throughout the British empire, not just those in what became the United States, would have been worse than otherwise.” He discusses the case at length in that article at the Library of Economics and Liberty.

The Revolution was a good idea for those roughly 1/3 of the Colonists who wished to separate themselves from the King and secede from British authority, which they sort of did do. But the new American founders’ forming of an entire nation, a political unit that all the inhabitants of the colonies would have to be a part of whether they liked it or not, and to be ruled over by a centralized regime in “Washington,” was not a good idea. Political centralization is never a good idea. The new U.S. Constitution empowered the centralized regime over the masses, created a Bureau of Elites with monopoly power, and it should have been foreseen that the Bill of Rights at some point would be ignored by the regime and all its apparatchiks (like ICE, which isn’t even authorized by the Constitution).

So in my view, I think the post-Revolution new political Union, at the expense of private property and self-rule, was really the beginning of the tearing down of the Enlightenment and the principles and values it attempted to promote. Revolution good, Union bad.

Anti-Foreigner Police State Criminality vs. Property Rights and Freedom

Besides being a self-destructive dog chasing and biting its own tail with the anti-American anti-free trade central planning idiocy with trade restrictions and tariffs, Donald Trump is also an extreme ignoramus on the immigration issue. I’ve written on that several times.

In this Market Watch article, Caroline Baum points out some fallacies in Trump’s thinking (if you call it “thinking”). For instance, Baum states that immigrants are more entrepreneurially motivated than U.S. citizens.

Immigrants are twice as likely to start a business as native-born Americans, for example. Forty-three percent of the 2017 Fortune 500 companies were founded or co-founded by a first- or second-generation immigrant, according to the Center for American Entrepreneurship. Those 216 companies generated $5.3 trillion of revenue and employed 12.1 million workers worldwide last year, according to the CAE.

In other words, in their role as entrepreneurs, immigrants are providing employment opportunities for Americans — high-paying jobs at established companies — not stealing jobs from American workers.

After listening to Trump and his nationalist-collectivist ignorant claptrap over the years, repeated word for word by the talk radio ditto-heads, I really believe that Trump and his obediently blind followers couldn’t care less about the actual facts of the matter when it comes to immigrants. With them it’s all emotional and no rationality whatsoever. It has to do with hating foreigners, needing to obstruct the lives and take opportunities away from the outsiders, the “other” (“they’re invading our country,” etc.). For them, the whole of the U.S. is an exclusive private club, and to get membership you have to “wait in line” and follow the rules (the Soviet-bureaucracy rules, that is), and so on.

No, people, you don’t wait in line for freedom. There are no authoritarian government “rules” to have to obey to find a better life for yourself and your family. Just don’t steal, don’t defraud, don’t use aggression against others. Duh.

These anti-foreigner, anti-immigrant ignoramuses on the radio I listen to on a daily basis (that I listen to because I’m obviously a masochist), they don’t care about freedom in America or prosperity, and live and let live which is what America used to be all about. And Donald Trump spoon-feeds them with all this nationalist crap.

The talk radio idiots would rather see a police state criminally detaining innocent immigrant families than see a foreigner open up a business in their community. And these “conservative” moralists should shut up about the “police state” with the Mueller-FBI witch hunt after Trump, as well. If it were the Bush DOJ/FBI going after the Obama campaign, the ditto-heads on talk radio would probably remain silent, and in fact they would probably cheer on that witch hunt. And I’m mainly talking about Rush Limbaugh, Howie Carr and Jeff Kuhner being the worst of them. You’ve probably heard Kuhner filling in for Michael Savage, and now you can catch him on Kuhner sounds like one of those crazy Sesame Street muppet characters.

These guys are good with other issues, such as climate change and ObamaCare. But on this nationalism stuff, they’re off the rails, in the same way the hystericals on the Left are “triggered” by un-PC words at the crazy college campuses. I’m really getting sick of it. And they should shut up about “group identity politics” as well. Just like the totalitarians on the Left, these guys with their group identity politics on the immigration/nationalism issue!

If only we could get rid of all immigration laws, which are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution anyway, and in fact abolish the centralized bureaucracies in D.C. and decentralize this thing called “America,” now realistically “Amerika.” Restore private property rights and freedom of association. Private property borders trump government borders!

Race-Obsessed Higher “Education”

People on the radio are arguing over the Trump administration’s wanting to eliminate affirmative action policies from the colleges and universities. Good! At least there’s something good they’re doing, or thinking of doing. “Diversity” programs (i.e. making sure there are certain numbers of black people, certain numbers of Hispanic, but not necessarily white or Asian), are not supposed to be why we have higher education.

In this article, economics professor Walter Williams discusses the results of affirmative action programs in higher education, how they have caused black students who were not proficient or skilled enough to be admitted to universities but were admitted anyway, which only hindered their success in many cases.

Dr. Williams notes:

In the early 1990s, the Law School Admission Council collected 27,000 law student records, representing nearly 90 percent of accredited law schools. The study found that after the first year, 51 percent of black law students ranked in the bottom tenth of their class, compared with 5 percent of white students. Two-thirds of black students were in the bottom fifth of their class. Only 10 percent of blacks were in the top half of their class. Twenty-two percent of black students in the LSAC database hadn’t passed the bar exam after five attempts, compared with 3 percent of white test takers.

And regarding the students’ earlier education:

The K-12 education that most blacks receive is grossly fraudulent. Most predominately black schools are costly yet grossly inferior to predominately white schools and are in cities where blacks hold considerable political power, such as Baltimore, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia. In these and other cities, it’s not uncommon for there to be high schools where less than 17 percent of the students test proficient in reading, and often not a single student in such schools tests proficient in math. Nonetheless, many receive high school diplomas

Dr. Williams asks if this agenda may have been intentional.

The fact that black students have low class rankings at such high-powered law schools as Penn doesn’t mean that they are stupid or uneducable. It means that they’ve been admitted to schools where they are in over their heads. To admit these students makes white liberals feel better about themselves. It also helps support the jobs of black and white university personnel in charge of diversity and inclusion. The question for black people is whether we can afford to have the best of our youngsters demeaned, degraded and possibly destroyed to make white liberals feel better about themselves.

So it seems that what matters to the education bureaucrats is to admit black students regardless of abilities, because it makes the admission board members feel good. Hmm, they must have extremely low self-esteem if they have to exploit young students of color based on the students’ skin color, to boost the college bureaucrats’ own feelings of self-worth.

And now look at the colleges today. Gender studies, women’s studies, race and gender, gender and race, blah, blah, blah, and we see that these “academics” are obsessed with race and gender, and LGBT issues. Can you imagine how things would be now if there were no taxpayer-funding of colleges and universities? Those aforementioned educrats and crazy professors would probably not have those jobs, jobs which actually wouldn’t even exist.

Articles for “Independence” (sic) Day

James Bovard on that time the media cheered for Gestapo immigration tactics.

Charles Burris discusses the President-Elect of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and his party the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and its being a political front for Freemasonry.

Article by John Vibes on an ignorant judge who has rubber-stamped the use of barbaric electric shock punishments on disabled students in Canton, Massachusetts. As I’ve been saying for years now, this is Soviet Amerika. Should we just get used to it, or end it?

Matt Agorist with an article on a police union wanting to ban books in high school because they mention police brutality. (They don’t want people to know.)

Ron Paul on the dollar dilemma: where to from here?

And “Watts Up With That” writes about why the climate change campaign failed — scientists demonstrate.

Both Conservative And Liberal SCOTUS Justices Are Biased

This New York Times article gives some important information about the history of free speech and the Supreme Court in America. The article states that conservatives “weaponized” the First Amendment. Its main examples are the recent Supreme Court rulings which protected non-union workers from having to support causes they disagree with, and protected Christian pregnancy clinics from having to tell patients about how to get an abortion.

In other words, in those two cases the Court said that the First Amendment protects people against compelled speech. Laws in America may not compel people to support a particular point of view or causes they disagree with. That should be a no-brainer in the “land of the free.” Laws compelling speech are authoritarian and violate the basic dignity and freedom of the individual.

And this is in contrast to a private firm requiring “compelled speech” as a part of employment, such as the NFL requiring that players stand for the so-called National Anthem at games. If the players don’t like the rules of employment then they are free to leave and find another job. The team is a privately owned enterprise, not a government owned enterprise, and therefore the rules of the firm are under the owners’ authority.

But the government and its laws may not require some kind of speech or expression. And that’s my view on that as well. But Justice (sic) Elena Kagan thinks that not allowing the government to compel speech is “weaponizing” the First Amendment. You see, the people on the Left are only for freedom of speech when it’s their views being protected. And further they are the ones who want to “weaponize” speech through compulsion and forcing people to have to fund causes they disagree with, or forcing Christians to have to discuss abortion with patients when it goes against their conscience.

The New York Times article also mentions how the Supreme Bureaucrats under conservative control have tended to protect more conservative speech. But it doesn’t break down individual SCOTUS members’ own votes on First Amendment issues. And it doesn’t note how liberal members are just as biased. But the NYT did do that a few years ago, which I wrote about in this post, which I will quote from:

Hmmm. It seems that writing about the First Amendment and Christian-majority tolerance of religious minorities, as I wrote in yesterday’s post, really elicits quite a response from people.

But regarding the Supreme Court’s decision that I mentioned in yesterday’s post, there was a study [.pdf] just recently by USC Law and Political Science Prof. Lee Epstein and colleagues which showed that U.S. Supreme Court Justices tend to approve of the First Amendment when it fits their own ideological views.

Here is a chart showing some of the study’s findings, as shown by the NYT:

justices biases
(Source: New York Times)

It appears as though the more conservative-leaning Justices were more biased against the more liberal speech or speaker, while the more liberal-leaning Justices seem to be less biased against conservative speech or speakers, albeit still biased. (However, the study mentioned above might itself be biased. Who knows?)

But, according to UC, Irvine Law Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, the current Roberts Court has shown more of a bias against speech which goes against the State. From the NYT:

“The court has, he said, protected hateful speech at military funerals, allowed the sale of violent video games to minors and struck down campaign finance laws. But it ruled against a government whistle-blower, a student expressing a pro-drug message, a prisoner and a human-rights activist.

“Justice Scalia was in the majority every time.”

Given how extremely and sickeningly authoritarian and fascist Amerika has become, I am not at all surprised. And it’s also no surprise that this “Supreme” Court has recently refused to even hear the case by Chris Hedges et al. in opposition to the NDAA’s provision of indefinite detention of Americans, which the President can use to have the military arrest and detain anyone he or government and military bureaucrats want to have arrested and detained, for any reason, without charges, or even suspicion.