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.

 

H.R.3166: Enemy Expatriation Act: Bad mouth the US gov, lose your citizenship!

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


The US Government IS "of the people" and "by the people"! Unfortunately, "the people" of this country tend to vote for our best con men. This is what has created a government that is not so much "for the people", but more for "some of the people". Anyway you look it at, ignorant voters are just as much at fault as the ones we elect.

See ya,
Milt




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I should have seen this coming. There is a lot of controversy over NDAA about whether or not it applies to American citizens. By adding vague language to an existing act, they can easily revoke a person's citizenship.
Voilà -- problem solved.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


I said "hostilities" (which IS the word used in the OP's source), and never mentioned the word "hostility".

Did you really mean to confirm what I already said?

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused

Do you [color=gold] really think revoking one's citizenship is that big of a deal?



Ha.
It's not about what we Citizens "think."

It's about what the powers have shown us is important to them in the past.

Revoking of citizenship was a HUGE freakin deal back when it was
about the missing thirteenth Amendment.

So much so that the British invaded,
burned down the US capitol,
and all records of it's radification by the state department were lost.

So you see.
History shows us...

Revoking someone's citizenship because they are a Lawyer who is running for office = bad.
Revoking someone's citizenship because they criticize the Lawyers running Washington = good.

It has never been about what we _think_


David Grouchy
edit on 30-12-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


We aren't bad mouthing our government. We are bad mouthing the criminals that claim to be running our government. Stolen votes, for stolen positions with stolen money. We aren't the traitors they are.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Sponsir Rep. Charles Dent (R-NY) - Target him for outsting! To talk yap on Govt is right as most will never actually attempt something as idiotic as such.

Why does it not surprise me. Hopefully it'll never see committee as long as it stays where it's at there's no hope for this! Awareness as to the existence of this should begin at once.
edit on 30-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by N3k9Ni
I should have seen this coming. There is a lot of controversy over NDAA about whether or not it applies to American citizens. By adding vague language to an existing act, they can easily revoke a person's citizenship.
Voilà -- problem solved.

Exactly what I was thinking. To add to it, I conclude; So, with that pretty much anything that they see fit to use against you what you have even said for example, would fall under loss of citizenship.


edit on 30-12-2011 by dreamingawake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


The passage of the 13th in it's current form overturned and nullified the old 13th, 1819 Version 1 and 1868 Version 2 to include African American freedoms and protections into it. This is to keep politicians honest which can actually be added to the Doc!

Since the States and The Congress ratified and passed the current 13th into law (hence the addition) the old is effectively overturned!
edit on 30-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcellante
Don't worry US citizens... I will do the bad mouthing for you. I do it everyday the second I log on here. Feels good to be Irish


Do you think I would worry ? I'm Irish to partner and if you think I'm intimidated we can have ourselves a badmouth the american gov. contest and I bet I whip ya ! Anyone else ?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


The passage of the 13th in it's current form overturned and nullified the old 13th, 1819 Version 1 and 1868 Version 2 to include African American freedoms and protections into it.


That's correct.
Which makes it a socially divisive bomb, to even bring it up.

Clever huh.
Especially when one considers the reality that minorities were not protected by
our current 13th Amendment as much as corporate entities were.


David Grouchy
edit on 30-12-2011 by davidgrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


I said "hostilities" (which IS the word used in the OP's source), and never mentioned the word "hostility".

Did you really mean to confirm what I already said?

See ya,
Milt


Yes, I did.

It does clearly state "hostilities", which specifically means an act of war. Just hoping they don't change a few letters on the sly.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NuclearPaul
 


Yeah, I agree. I sure wouldn't want our lawmakers to do what the OP did.


See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
first the actual verbiage of the bill for reference:


(a) In General- Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in each of paragraphs (1) through (6), by striking `or' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; or'; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
`(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.'; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`(c) For purposes of this section, the term `hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war.'.
(b) Technical Amendment- Section 351(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1483(a)) is amended by striking `(6) and (7)' and inserting `(6), (7), and (8)'.


thomas.loc.gov


So it specifically relates to conflict subject to the laws of war. This is their solution to the USGOV assasinating citizens. They simply change the laws to make it clear that they are no longer citizens.

If this sort of law was around during the civil war, everyone who fought for the confederation would have to be re-naturalized after the war.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


Section 2 line C of this bill states clearly: ‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.
This means if you commit an ACT OF WAR against the United States. Any one citizen that commits an act of war against his own country is guilty of Treason. When a group if citizens, usualy a large on commits an act of war, then it is a rebellion. Rebels are usually not treated as Traitors unless they lose the war. Our Founding Fathers were treated as heros rather than traitors because they won. If you want to fight the U.S. government, you better win.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
I used to think that maybe Alex Jones over reacts but the more a person looks at what might be coming shortly down the road I have to say he might be spot on ...peace



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Please explain how you come to the conclusion that a citizen can't "bad mouth" the U.S. Government. From what I can tell it does nothing more than specify long standing reasons, that one would lose their citizenship. Modified to include those that are planning armed rebellion or terrorism through service or financing.


Read the bill?.. it says:

"A bill to add engaging in or supporting hostilities against the United States to the list of acts for which United States nationals would lose their nationality."

www.govtrack.us...

Who decides?.. the govt (dept of state).. if obmao doesn't assassinate you with a drone, you can appeal..

Federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1481 already defines 7 acts for which a US citizen can be stripped of their papers.. this nazi law would add one more.

I really like the purposefully vague language of ".. supporting hostilities.."....

Nazis did this too.. used against enemies of the state.

"1. A citizen of the Reich is only that subject, who is of German- or kindred blood and who, through his conduct, shows that he is both desirous and fit to serve faithfully the German people and Reich."

Who decided if a German citizen was "desirous"?.. who displayed the proper "conduct"?.. The Reich Minister of the Interior / Deputy of the Fuehrer.

"The Reich Minister of the Interior in conjunction with the Deputy of the Fuehrer will issue the necessary legal and administrative decrees for the carrying out and supplementing of this law. Nurnberg, 15 Sept 1935 at the Reichsparteitag of Liberty The Fuehrer and Reichs Chancellor Adolf Hitler"

avalon.law.yale.edu...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 

I agree entirely about stupid voters being the root of a large portion of our problem. A chart I came across yesterday showed U.S. turnout only runs in the 30's to 50's for % even during the recent Presidential races. It's really kinda pathetic when looked at that way and does speak to how citizen participation is necessary to maintain a free republic.


Having agreed on that point though, I do disagree in your next note about how this is much to do about nothing. Perhaps it was standing in a park in St Louis and watching Department Of Homeland Security / Secret Service vehicles full of very heavily armed agents...and the sniper teams above us when I was in Occupy that changed my view on a few things.

It's one thing to see that on TV. It's quite another to watch these drive right by and realize they are there to KILL *YOU* if you do something they consider inappropriate. Michelle Obama was at the World Series, by the way. That is why we had SO much security right on top of us, just 3 blocks away from the game. That doesn't mean other camps didn't see the same or more for pressure before things got outright violent.

I don't trust how they DEFINE "treason" or "against the US". The way things are going, my mere presence living there in camp could soon be seen as sedition or some equally asinine charge, but it won't seem funny to those who get arrested and 'disappeared' by it.

No.. I just don't trust this crop of leaders a bit with any thing more for power. They have a bit too clear of a track record for abusing what they already have.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GovtFlu
 


It isn't "purposefully" vague at all and you read more to it than it is. You people are just downright hilarious in your retarded they are coming to get me scenarios. You speaking up and about your government are no where in this bill.

(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.

It is quite clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you speak out politically. But then again only rational thinking people would understand that. Sorry no gold stars for you here today, it has always been within the law to revoke citizenship of those looking to overthrow the government.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by GovtFlu
 
‘(c) For purposes of this section, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war.’.


Well, then we shouldn't worry about any of this, huh? I mean you are suggesting they will follow their own rules and so, we can read this to the letter of what it says and feel 100% confident that it'll never be abused correct?


After all, we haven't HAD a conflict properly subject to the laws of war...OUR laws of war..like declarations and all that silly stuff...since 1941. So, if we assume they go by their own rules.. Hell, we haven't even had a situation this would apply to in over 65 years. Why did they even bother writing it? I know I trust them, so all is well.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Really? The first lady is at the World Series and you don't expect to see the Secret Service there when your in a protest three blocks away? Seriously the Government has taken such situations pretty seriously and rightfully so. Of course there is going to be security there and larges amounts of it with a disgusted and rightfully so populous three blocks away. The fact you haven't been tucked away in some deep dark corner of the Federal Prison system shows just how much you really matter to them. If they wanted to do it according to you they already had the manpower there to do it and didn't.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join