Well, there you go – I really meant it last time, when I said I was going to look for other nightmare-amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill.

As comes to no great surprise (least of all to me), I found one.

Now, while it doesn’t seem like I could find anything quite as egregious as last time…well,…

Let’s Review:

AMENDMENT TO H.R. 2647, AS REPORTED OFFERED BY MR. HASTINGS OF FLORIDA

(Yes, that’s Alcee Hastings… Yes, THAT Alcee Hastings)

SEC. 524. PROHIBITION ON RECRUITMENT, ENLISTMENT, OR RETENTION OF PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH GROUPS ASSOCIATED WITH HATE-RELATED VIOLENCE AGAINST GROUPS OR PERSONS OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.

Hmm… “Hate-Related Violence” … you know, that’s become such a buzz-phrase lately, and particularly among Democrats trying to pull a fast one on the public, that it automatically makes me start looking for the fine-print – like “Associated or Affiliated”, for instance.

The Devil is in the Details – Onward.

Section 504 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘‘(c) PERSONS ASSOCIATED OR AFFILIATED WITH HATE GROUPS.—

‘‘(1) PROHIBITION.—A person associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence against groups or persons or the United States Government, as determined by the Attorney General, may not be recruited, enlisted, or retained in the armed forces.

So far, this just seems like one of those “Too obvious to need..”…

Wait a minute… “as determined by the Attorney General”?!?

As in “The Attorney General gets to determine what constitutes “association”?

Yeah,..Uh.. Sorry, but after our last brushes with the perceptions, priorities and determinations of Obama’s Attorney General, you’ll excuse me if I’m just automatically…Not Comfortable with that.

At least it seems that Representative Alcee “Bribery-Impeached” Hastings has provided a definition of “Hate Group”:

‘‘(A) Groups or organizations that espouse or engage in acts of violence against other groups or minorities based on ideals of hate, ethnic supremacies, white supremacies, racism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia, or other bigotry ideologies.

‘‘(B) Groups or organizations engaged in criminal gang activity including drug and weapons trafficking and smuggling.

‘‘(C) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

‘‘(D) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed activity in a ‘race war’.

‘‘(E) Groups or organizations that encourage members to join the armed forces in order to obtain military training to be used for acts of violence against minorities, other groups, or the United States Government.

‘‘(F) Groups or organizations that espouse violence based on race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

‘‘(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.

Okay, here we see another example of hiding an agenda between a couple of layers of Objections-Too-Obvious-To-Need-To Be-Spoken.

Points A, B, E & F are the “No-Duh” layers – intended to be so over-the-top-obvious as to set the tone and make the reader (should anyone actually read one of these) gloss over the following points, assuming ‘more of the same’.

…but let’s slow down and look at those other points:

‘‘(C) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed revolutionary activity against the United States Government, or the violent overthrow of the United States Government.

A person’s “Intention” can be a tricky thing to legally pin down all by itself, without any overt ‘action’ but even so, to merely “Espouse an expectation” – that’s VERY, VERY different from “espouse an intention”

That would be as to say: “We are a group that expects there will one day come a second American Revolution”

What would make a group “expect” such a thing?

Maybe a Governmental movement toward restricting individual rights & freedoms in favor of abdicating sovereignty to a more…’global’ authority ?

Maybe a Governmental movement toward shoving America into ‘Big-S’ Socialism through, say, the nationalizing of Banks , sections of Industry and , dare I suggest, Healthcare and Education?

Maybe a President who sees circumventing the Constitution to be of no particular matter?

Could there actually be people who might see this sort of thing as a threat to the country they took an oath to protect?

Do you think that all of this could make a group ‘espouse the expectation’ that there could come a time when the American people might stand up and say “No More”?

Perhaps – and being “associated” with such a group would, under this amendment to the Defense Bill, keep you out of the military.

Let’s keep going…

‘‘(D) Groups or organizations that espouse an intention or expectation of armed activity in a ‘race war’.

Again, there’s that “Espouse an Expectation” – Now, Alcee “Cold-Cash” Hastings didn’t specifically call-out StormFront or the KKK, so let’s approach this in the same, open-ended way that these legislators seem to be so fond of:

What could make a person or people ‘expect’ the eventuality of a ‘race-war’?

Maybe the emergence of a Government run by people with a penchant for pronouncing what would automatically be, coming from anyone else, racist views?

Maybe a series of Governmental movements toward unequal protection under the law for some people based on the color of their skin, or a the blatant decision by the new Attorney General NOT to prosecute a racist group caught on video engaging in Voter Intimidation or other public pronouncements that seem to embolden race-based attacks?

And isn’t a ‘race-war’ exactly what the hustlers like Al Sharpton have been promising for years?

Do you think that could make a group ‘espouse the expectation’ that a “race-war” must be in the offing, however near or far in the future?

Perhaps it could – and that sort of dot-connecting could very well find you being “identified as” or “associated with” as such a group and would, under this amendment to the Defense Bill, keep you out of the military.

But wait… here comes my personal favorite:

‘‘(G) Other groups or organizations that are determined by the Attorney General to be of a violent, extremist nature.

“…determined by the Attorney Gen…”

Do I have to repeat my above-noted concern over HANDING that level of power over to our unelected Attorney General, Eric Holder?

I thought not – you’re bright & get the idea.

Let’s move on to what this Bill would hold up as …

‘‘(3) EVIDENCE OF ASSOCIATION OR AFFILIATION WITH HATE GROUP.

—The following shall constitute evidence that a person is associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence:

No kidding – ‘rules of evidence’ be-damned – Alcee “Bribe-Judge” Hastings is going to TELL you what evidence is.

Layered as it is (and like everything else in this bill) between ‘No-Duh” layers, I’m going to skip straight to the really worrisome parts:

‘‘(B) Individuals known to have attended meetings, rallies, conferences, or other activities sponsored by a hate group

Just out of curiosity – how many of you carefully vet the list of sponsors, taking note of their individual political leanings, before attending a meeting, rally, or conference? Show of hands?

Yah - too bad, that.

And just for the sake of pointing it out, wasn’t that EXACTLY Barack Obama’s defense when he was taken to task for Bill Ayers (of the Weather Underground) sponsoring HIS meeting/rally/conference that launched his political career?

Sorry, Barack – if this one passes, you wouldn’t even be eligible to enlist in the very military over which you currently find yourself CiC.

‘‘(C) Individuals known to be involved in online activities with a hate group, including being engaged in online discussion groups or blog or other postings that support, encourage, or affirm the group’s extremist or violent views and goals.

So… your participation in online discussion groups, blogs or other postings will, under this amendment, constitute “evidence” and cause for your exclusion from military service.

Notice there’s no legal definition in this thing for “support” – does that mean “failure to actively censor”? - I don’t know, and it’s left perilously open-ended.

‘‘(D) Individuals who are known to have in their possession photographs, testimonials (including diaries or journals), propaganda, or other materials indicating involvement or affiliation with a hate group.

So… there will now be a list of reading materials that you will be forbidden (forgive me this bit of gratuitous emphasis) To Have In Your Possession – it occurs to me that Hitler’s Mien Kampf is usually associated with hate groups… and can be found in most libraries - so does Alcee “Show-Me-The-Money” Hastings intend to divine the contents of your soul if you check it out, or will you merely have to attempt to prove your own innocence?

Such materials can include photographs, written materials relating to or referring to extreme hatred that are clearly not of an academic nature, possession of objects that venerate or glorify hate inspired violence, and related materials, as determined by the Attorney General..

“…and related materials, as determined by the Attorney Gen…”

AGAIN with allowing Eric Holder to “determine” which printed information will be ‘forbidden to possess’ under this legislation.

Does anyone else see a problem with this?

If not, try this on for size:

This Amendment, which would allow Attorney General Eric Holder to determine which group associations are acceptable and what printed material you would be allowed to ‘have in your possession”…

Doesn’t just apply to young people looking to enlist in the military – it also applies to existing service members:

‘‘(5) SEPARATION.—

‘‘(A) SEPARATION REQUIRED.—A person discovered or determined to be associated or affiliated with a group associated with hate-related violence, as evidenced pursuant to paragraph (3), shall be immediately discharged from the armed forces, in the manner prescribed in regulations regarding discharge from service.

Consider – now we’re talking about someone who’s already been through Basic, AIT, their specific MOS-school and may even be in the Officer-corps and yet, somehow, has managed to NOT be a howling psychopath or otherwise run afoul of the modern-military’s umpty-leventy-hundred layers of “sensitivity-training” and corporate-style Human Resources watchdogs…

…but somehow – because of ‘evidence’ of a type and nature “to be determined by the Attorney General” – might JUST need to be run out of the military.

Help me out here – why do I think this is something just ripe for some serious abuse ?

- Ron