It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BIG Announcement from POTUS

page: 22
35
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man

The police are not paid much and time is money. The police are not going to waste their time going through every single person's emails and text messages. Nor my ATS posts...However if during the weeding process they do find terrorists then it's worth it.

It is not the job of the police to keep our country safe from terrorist. It is the job of the 3 letter agencies and the over paid useless Homeland Security.

It took them almost 2 days to put out a bogus picture of the wife along with a lame as story for why they didn't have a picture. What did they do, lose her Visa and Green Card pictures, or did they not want the American people to know that they are allowing these people to take pictures with them dressed in a Burka?

They may have better luck catching terrorist if they spent more time spying on the people they are letting in from countries that we at war with, instead of the average American Citizen.

It might also help a little bit if they bothered to but restrictions on the wearing of Burkas in certain and sensitive situations. Any idiot can see how it would be easy as cutting through butter to hide anything and anybody under that thing. Can they really be that stupid or do they think we are that stupid?




posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: flyandi

He is a liberal isn't he.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
"The people who would trade their liberty for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." ~ Benjamin Franklin




posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Didn't read the entire thread, nor did I watch the POTUS speech.. just got home. So.. did he proclaim he was going to take everyone's guns? Or is he going to declare WWIII so he can stay the President? I can only assume it was terrible, from the first couple of pages I read in this thread before I had to take off.

So what rights did he steal away tonight?



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit
Didn't read the entire thread, nor did I watch the POTUS speech. [...] So what rights did he steal away tonight?


None, in as far as I can see. No US ground troops in Syria, more support for rebels in Syria, heavy weapons will be more difficult to buy, some folks that are on the no fly list will not be allowed to buy guns.

To be honest, I can't see why this was seen as important. It's what you'd expect.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfThor

Did I suggest that his "ideas" would have stopped anything?

No.

I simply was trying to bring some reason and common sense to the sensationalism and freaking out people are doing.

If anything, the entire "no fly list" should be what people are upset about in the first place.

Which, if we remember our history was greatly expanded from 16 people to thousands after 9/11 and under the Bush Jr. administration.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: game over manHow many people own a gun who live by me? Ok that guy is going to save the neighborhood from radical islamic terrorists with bombs, armor, and automatic weapons ready to die with his glock, shotgun, or hunting rifle?


Indeed.

Even if everybody had an entire chest full of weapons - it does not help against terrorism. If all people in CA had had guns, it would not have prevented the CA shooting of recent. If all Parisians had had a gun - it would not have prevented those crimes either. But it sure as hell would create an even bigger death toll, as for sure some trigger happy fool would shoot down his neighbour by accident, or shoot down a black man just because he looks "suspicious", or has to see his 3 year old kid shoot his mother by accident.

There is no simple solution here: in a free nation, we are vulnerable. That's the entire point: that we are mostly unarmed, friendly, willing to help others. That's called 'civilisation'. And yes, that also means that madmen can come and kill us. As they like. Not much we can do about it, especially not if those madmen are our own, as was the case in CA. Radicalization is evil, and evil should be fought, but not with guns.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   
dont shoot the messenger, but i just heard 2 heavy hitters of the media here talking about the Obama speech. A former big time politician and a media heavy here from opposite sides just said they cant believe the speech.

Both agreed that it was the most p&ss weak speech, that a president does not ask for air time when the american football was on and then deliver that. Both expressed their fear that this bloke is in the office till 2017.

Not our business but just relaying a review of the speech from an alias.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: wildb

He wants to start a new civil war.... Remember he has claimed his presidency will be similar to that of Abraham Lincoln...



...
Obama will also be the first president to use the Lincoln Bible for his inauguration since Lincoln used it in 1861. Inauguration organizers have said Obama's inaugural theme, "A New Birth of Freedom," was inspired by Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.
...

www.cnn.com...

Lincoln did do a lot of good things for this nation, Obama has done none. Yet the greatest change Lincoln did was to start the Civil War to give freedom to slaves. This time Obama wants to start a civil war to take away more of our rights and our freedom.

Obama is the anti-thesis of Abraham Lincoln.




edit on 7-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: bellagirl
dont shoot the messenger, but i just heard 2 heavy hitters of the media here talking about the Obama speech. A former big time politician and a media heavy here from opposite sides just said they cant believe the speech.

Both agreed that it was the most p&ss weak speech, that a president does not ask for air time when the american football was on and then deliver that. Both expressed their fear that this bloke is in the office till 2017.

Not our business but just relaying a review of the speech from an alias.



Their assessment is accurate. Although I'm obviously not a fan of this president, I will give him some credit for not attempting to take unilateral action against the rights of American citizens when undoubtedly, some in his party and some of his supporters are pressuring him to do that. That being said, the speech was essentially a reiteration of existing policy, nothing new. Problem is, an increasing number of people don't think the status quo is working.

This article kind of sums it up. When even MSNBC and their liberal pundits are saying that, you know Obama is out of touch on this, especially the national security and foreign policy side.
edit on 7-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Really?... There are millions of American with concealed carry weapons... Do you see these people killing others en mass?... The stupid claims some people make are hilarious to say the least...



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: game over man
I don't know why people get upset if more laws and security gets put into place, it's for our protection and our freedom.


That is abit of a oxymoron isnt it? More laws = More Freedom

Sorry but your attitude is how most tyrants get into power!
edit on 7-12-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: SonOfThor

Did I suggest that his "ideas" would have stopped anything?

No.

I simply was trying to bring some reason and common sense to the sensationalism and freaking out people are doing.

If anything, the entire "no fly list" should be what people are upset about in the first place.

Which, if we remember our history was greatly expanded from 16 people to thousands after 9/11 and under the Bush Jr. administration.


I replied to you but it was also a reply to the general argument people have against guns based on emotion and sensationalism.

I agree with everything you just said here 100%. No one is coming for our guns, they may try and chip away at our 2nd Amendment rights (plenty of States already do so), but people are getting angry about the wrong things.

The debt is our biggest threat, as well as arming various groups over seas that we think will do our dirty work for us (all without the vote of the American people), then we get surprised when there is blowback that forces our Government to do things like create "no fly lists" etc.

I find it odd that Obama mentioned not letting fear take us over due to terrorist acts, yet then he proposes more laws based on a hoplophobic, irrational, emotional argument.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ForteanOrg

And yes, that also means that madmen can come and kill us. As they like. Not much we can do about it, especially not if those madmen are our own, as was the case in CA. Radicalization is evil, and evil should be fought, but not with guns.

I think we have to stop being naive and PC about this war that is going on in our countries.

Radical Islamist are not our own, regardless the flavor they come in. We are being as hoodwinked with the same devastating effects as a mother bird with a brown-headed cowbird egg laying in its nest.

Keeping with the animal theme since that is basically what we are, there are safety measures that can be put in place, at least temporarily, until we can sort out who is who, and what is what. It is not going to go over well with quite a few people, and it will not be PC, but sometimes you have to do, what you don't want to do.

I just happen to be an animal lover and I am very fond of dogs. I breaks my heart anytime a dog has to be put down for being a dog, but we can't allow a vicious dog to just go around killing other pets, children and people, so the unpleasant thing has to be done. The dog is either caged or put down.

I love pit bulls and I think they are one of the most misunderstood and unfairly treated of the dog breeds, but there are very strict laws in many areas, regarding the ownership of pit bulls, and they are not even allowed in some places.

While I think it is horrible that all pit bulls are maligned and treated unjustly, for the behavior and actions of a few, I also understand the danger and the damage that could occur if the family pet, that had the heart of an angel, suddenly became vicious, and ravaged the family's newly born infant, for whatever reason.

We know that we have pit bulls in our mist and that most of them have hearts of angels. While some people swear by, and trust their infants being around and unsupervised, with these wonderful animals, there is not one of those people that will not live a life time of regret, if they were wrong, and that wonderful animal, for what ever reason, turned and ravaged their child.

I think sometimes you have to err on the side of caution.

Don't bother wasting your time responding to this post to declare that I am a xenophobic racist. You will believe what makes you feel good, and I am alright with that, because it won't be the first or last time you will wrong.


edit on 7-12-2015 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: Format fix.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Did he REALLY say that they were going to prevent people on the no fly list from buying firearms?

Does anyone not see the problem with that? They can put ANYONE They want on the no fly list...There is no due process to that. Us allowing that to happen could be the beginning of the end..

He creates a bigger list, we've already seen memorandums that state that people with libertarian mindsets and former vets are potential threats, then it's well we have to take it further than preventing the people on these lists from purchasing new firearms, we have to make sure they don't already have them. So we'll be confiscating their firearms. But don't worry, all of you can still purchase your firearms and we won't take yours.

Once that precedent is set, they can confiscate and prevent anyone they want from getting or keeping arms.

This is MUCH bigger a deal than people are realizing. These are the steps that equate to the frog in a pot with the temp being raised versus dropping them into a boiling pot.

Jaden



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

originally posted by: fleabit
Didn't read the entire thread, nor did I watch the POTUS speech. [...] So what rights did he steal away tonight?


None, in as far as I can see. No US ground troops in Syria, more support for rebels in Syria, heavy weapons will be more difficult to buy, some folks that are on the no fly list will not be allowed to buy guns.

To be honest, I can't see why this was seen as important. It's what you'd expect.


Being on the no fly list isn't criminal and there is no due process to it, there is no set standard or guidelines for whom should be placed on said list.

Therefor, it's not constitutionally sound to remove peoples guaranteed rights. You can't tell someone who has not been convicted of a crime who did nothing illegal who was put on a no fly list that they cannot purchase weapons, you are removing their 2nd amendment rights on a whim for what could have been a misrepresented statement made on facebook. Ironic, considering this is supposed to be a country with freedom of speech.

So basically, exercising your 1st amendment rights can actually remove your second amendment rights. Like -- come on, that's a severe encroachment on the freedoms of the American people.
edit on 7-12-2015 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

True. You know what the stupidest part is? The anti-gun brigade is going to sit there and blame Republicans for that, even though Republicans offered up an amendment that made an attempt to address these concerns over due process. Only ONE Democrat supported that.

Notice who they blame, but read the last two paragraphs.
edit on 7-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Masterjaden

You are correct. It is not about taking back the guns, that can happen later. It is making sure those you do not want to have weapons cannot buy them. It is almost as if they have been waiting to drop this one.

It is not just about your weapons. They want you to think that. But now, they control EVERY aspect of your life if you let them and you allow it to happen. Education...Jobs...Welfare...Media...Healthcare...

The more they push the more the 'crazies' come out and the easier it is to mainstream and push through...on a Sunday at 2 AM...



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

Therefor, it's not constitutionally sound to remove peoples guaranteed rights. You can't tell someone who has not been convicted of a crime who did nothing illegal who was put on a no fly list that they cannot purchase weapons, you are removing their 2nd amendment rights on a whim for what could have been a misrepresented statement made on facebook. Ironic, considering this is supposed to be a country with freedom of speech.

And exactly how is a no fly list supposed to keep us safe again? The logic here floors me.

They are keeping America safe by placing its citizens on a no fly list, because they may be a threat, though they have no indication, or prove they are a threat. They keep America safe by preventing passengers from taking any fluids or drinks onto a plane, make them take off their shoes and be x-rayed, before boarding a plane, to go to another town, or state, in the United States. I have trouble seeing how this is supposed to work, but if our amazing Homeland Security thinks this overkill is erring on the side of caution, I could tolerate it, if, some of the other things they were doing made sense.

For instance; how does allowing in thousands of people from the area where you have identified the real threat to be, and the real threat has already warned you, they plan to enter through your immigration program, is keeping America safe?

How is letting in people with bogus credentials, that look like they were made in a craft class by 10 year olds, and photo IDs of people with their face and body covered, from head to toe, so that trying to identify the person under the garment, is like picking a brass needle from a haystack, and allows you no way of knowing if the person under the material, is even a man or woman, keeping America safe?

We are not stupid, blind, or that gullible, that we can't see the handwriting on the wall. We are just that programmed and complacent to do anything more than complain about it.



edit on 7-12-2015 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: Word correction.



posted on Dec, 7 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Egyptian TV Host on California Terror Attack: Americans Should Stick Obama on an Impalement Rod

www.memritv.org...



new topics




 
35
<< 19  20  21    23 >>

log in

join