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.

 

Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


On February 25, 2016 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unanimously vacated her conviction of an immigration violation, sending the case back to Judge Drain to reconsider the admissibility of expert testimony.[19] Circuit Judge John M. Rogers, joined partially by Judge Karen Nelson Moore, vacated and remanded, while Judge Alice M. Batchelder partially dissented, wanting to vacate while ordering a new trial.[44] On December 6, 2016, Judge Drain in Detroit denied prosecutors’ request to reinstate Odeh’s conviction, instead granting Odeh a new trial, scheduled to begin January 10, 2017.[45][46]


wikipedia




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74



Denial of Citizenship for Lies or False Statements
If you're applying for U.S. citizenship, do not make any false statements on your naturalization application - it may have serious consequences.

updated by Ilona Bray, J.D.

Lies or false statements (other than honest mistakes) are taken very seriously by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the authority in charge of reviewing applications for naturalization or U.S. citizenship. Here's what you should know.
...
It doesn't matter what the lie is about, however. Even a small lie -- or an apparent lie, based on the applicant's inconsistent statements -- is enough to justify a denial of citizenship. The sad irony is that sometimes the issue that a person lied about would not, by itself, have barred them from naturalization.
Consequences of Providing False Testimony During Naturalization Interview

If you knowingly and intentionally provide false information (orally) during the naturalization interview and testing process -- or if USCIS discovers that you falsely testified in order to gain immigration benefits in the past -- you can expect your application to be denied. Or, if the lie is discovered later, USCIS can revoke (take away) a person's citizenship. Remember, the naturalization interview is held "under oath," meaning that right from the start, you raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth.
...

www.alllaw.com...

When a naturalized citizen lies, more so about a criminal activity which involved a bombing that murdered 2 people and injured 8 others, your citizenship not only is denied, but you are deported.

The only thing stopping this is "political correct" left-wingers who are supporting a known terrorist who to this day still calls for a militant cause...





edit on 27-2-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Take it up with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Someone stated she was going to be deported (and probably will be) and I replied her citizenship hadn't been determined yet, to which you posted her conviction. That conviction has been vacated (tossed out). She is getting a new trial. Don't get mad at me for facts.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ah, a referee of credibility ... I've always thought that was a feeble ploy when you have nothing in an argument.


LOL I was responding to you saying "Your conspiracy cred just dropped considerably" to Hounddoghowlie HERE, so you admit your only using feeble ploys because you have nothing in an argument.

So what does that do to your own view of your own credibility?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniversenot to mention how many women around the globe suffer under the "socialist reforms" implemented in countries like China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.


That, of course, was all fake news, brought to you by lying, cheating news agencies. According to the current President.

As an anarchist I'm not very fond of overly loud, agressive utterings, as they tend to polarize things and make it impossible to cooperate later. However, I can understand that in a country led by a guy that seems to think that ladies should be approached with your hand at crotch level, a large number of women feel insulted and attacked. And they want to do something. Some of them will resolve to political tactics, not unknown to the right either: exxagerate.

BTW: there is nothing bad about socialism at all. Like many philosophies on how people can live together it has been abused to establish a totalitarian state. Not unlike the state you are currently creating over there.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

What violence is called for by the authors of the Guardian article?

What violence has been associated with the Women's Marches in 2017?



You mean besides their individual criminal records? lol.

dailycaller.com...




The Women’s March on Washington last week featured as a speaker convicted felon Donna Hylton who, along with several others, kidnapped a man and then tortured him to death.


Pretty strange they love to roll with all these radical violent criminals.

But that doesn't matter, right?

The zebra's have changed their stripes, I suppose.








posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So ... no violence called for in the article, and no violence at the marches.

You came to the same conclusion I did.


edit on 27-2-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: gps777

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Ah, a referee of credibility ... I've always thought that was a feeble ploy when you have nothing in an argument.


LOL I was responding to you saying "Your conspiracy cred just dropped considerably" to Hounddoghowlie HERE, so you admit your only using feeble ploys because you have nothing in an argument.

So what does that do to your own view of your own credibility?


My credibility?

I've been asking two basic questions for page after page and you can't answer them.

You wish to avoid the answers because the assumptions in the thread are false and invalid, and you're willing to do anything you have to avoid that fact.

It's not my credibility you should be so concerned with ...
edit on 27-2-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So ... no violence called for in the article, and no violence at the marches.

You can'e to the same conclusion I did.




Marches ain't over yet.




posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So ... no violence called for in the article, and no violence at the marches.

You can'e to the same conclusion I did.




Marches ain't over yet.



That hasn't stopped the article in the Post from alleging that the Guardian article was a call to violence (when it's not) and the endless prattling on about violence on the left (when there has been NONE in these women's marches) ... and apparently you chimed in here fully aware of both of those facts and yet you were still doing everything you can to distract from that point.

This is exactly the kind of thing that turns every discussion into a verbal knife fight.

Why are you and some others here so concentrated on sowing divisiveness?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   
When these lovely ladies start protesting and marching for the rights of actual oppressed women without any rights, instead of dipsticks who already have all the rights they can hold in their handbags, I'll start listening



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
When these lovely ladies start protesting and marching for the rights of actual oppressed women without any rights, instead of dipsticks who already have all the rights they can hold in their handbags, I'll start listening


Why wait?

Set up your own march, print your own article about the issues you see.

Don't tear down the people who are trying to do something merely because you have different political beliefs.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Should've sentenced her to death imao.

Lets' be real, had she been a man, they would've.

Wait...you mean that's a woman?



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
A Palestinian convicted by the Israelis what a joke Israel convicts Palestinians whether they are guilty or not. It is fun to watch people piss and moan when a citizen starts using their rights.

So...you're a terrorist supporter. Well, that clears up a lot. I just thought you were a radical liberal...not a fan of child murders.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So ... no violence called for in the article, and no violence at the marches.

You can'e to the same conclusion I did.




Marches ain't over yet.



That hasn't stopped the article in the Post from alleging that the Guardian article was a call to violence (when it's not) and the endless prattling on about violence on the left (when there has been NONE in these women's marches) ... and apparently you chimed in here fully aware of both of those facts and yet you were still doing everything you can to distract from that point.

This is exactly the kind of thing that turns every discussion into a verbal knife fight.

Why are you and some others here so concentrated on sowing divisiveness?



Because known criminal felons are being hailed as heroes by the left?

What's that march for? The war on men?








posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They march for rights they already have
They do not help the women that need help
I'm not political and hold few if any political beliefs

I am already doing my bit thanks against Genital Mutilation and Genocide watch



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burgerbuddy

So ... no violence called for in the article, and no violence at the marches.

You can'e to the same conclusion I did.




Marches ain't over yet.



That hasn't stopped the article in the Post from alleging that the Guardian article was a call to violence (when it's not) and the endless prattling on about violence on the left (when there has been NONE in these women's marches) ... and apparently you chimed in here fully aware of both of those facts and yet you were still doing everything you can to distract from that point.

This is exactly the kind of thing that turns every discussion into a verbal knife fight.

Why are you and some others here so concentrated on sowing divisiveness?



Because known criminal felons are being hailed as heroes by the left?

What's that march for? The war on men?







Now you're merely evangelizing and baiting.

The facts remain: no one has called for violence in the Women's marches, and no violence has happened.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: Gryphon66

They march for rights they already have
They do not help the women that need help
I'm not political and hold few if any political beliefs

I am already doing my bit thanks against Genital Mutilation and Genocide watch


Perhaps they're marching in order to keep their rights? Or bring attention to those who want to take them away?

I'm not sure how valid the statement is that "they" don't help women who need help; that's just a generalized belief.

I'm glad you work for good causes.

edit on 27-2-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 06:08 AM
link   


As a first step, we propose to help build an international strike against male violence and in defense of reproductive rights on 8 March. In this, we join with feminist groups from around 30 countries who have called for such a strike.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


to me, it kind of sounds like the actual women's strike that is planned for march was already planned and they just added their voices to it...
who knows, maybe the new trump administration made a deal with the palestinian and she'll be allowed to stay in the country for adding a few dark spots to the women's groups that have been activated. I mean they already know that these marches and strikes are can be very effective in changing planned policies, just look what happened in poland when they were planning on making their abortion laws even stricter than they were at the encouragement of the church. massive walkouts during church services and a few really large marches and the planned changes were dropped like a hot potato. the thought of them calling for a "day without women" might be a bit ominous to them considering the number of women who might not be showing up for work on that day.

I'm not gonna get into weather these particular people are marxists, terrorists or anything else. It is just reminding me of how the right was trying to label the ex-governor of my state under the same light because of the missionary work he had done years ago in a central american government, and the connections he may have made!

for those that are asking what they are marching for, we have all the rights now....
well, first, equal pay would be nice. but weather or not you agree....
we want to keep the rights our mothers and grandmothers have fought for and we see them in danger now that a self proclaimed pussy grabber who once had a lawyer defending him against spousal abuse and rape charges by claiming that a husband can't rape his wife.



posted on Feb, 27 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Take it up with the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. Someone stated she was going to be deported (and probably will be) and I replied her citizenship hadn't been determined yet, to which you posted her conviction. That conviction has been vacated (tossed out). She is getting a new trial. Don't get mad at me for facts.
No one will get mad at you for facts, just your willingness to support violent Marxist revolutionaries in the US. How long have I been warning about Marxism on ATS?
edit on 27-2-2017 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join