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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 

I think you missed what I was saying entirely. In hindsight and after the event was over, obviously the show of force was for just that..a show of force. Unless of course we didn't take the message..and then a show of bullets would likely have followed. Like I was saying, it isn't something you can read or watch on TV and think you have any idea what living it feels like.

There are perhaps few things that can accurately be said about...but being an active target of heavily armed federal agents can be said to be one of them. It really took experiencing that for me to realize the gravity and 'in your face' reality of the things we casually debate here day in and day out. This is no game...and people are hurt. People are killed. It;s happening every day and only a % of them ever did a damn thing to bring it on.

Now, we didn't get stomped there...we didn't push and never had been an Occupy Camp that favored confrontation. Other camps DID get stomped...HARD...by Federal agents and State Police under federal guidance and advisers. Some asked for it...some did NOTHING to deserve what happened to them (Remember Boston Site 2, Oct 11...I always will), So, with those couple things in mind AND MANY MORE I'm not writing a book to list...I don't trust Obama, Bush or *ANYONE* who has worked for or under either of them, period.

That all means..I don't trust a single thing they say about how they will interpret this. It doesn't SAY what the behaviors are or what it means..so I absolutely do NOT trust their judgement or motives in application of such a vague law/clause.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


I agree. I don't vote. I never have. There has been no one to vote for until ... dare I say it? Ron Paul. He seems like the most forthright and honest chap ever to run for office in my lifetime and probably before that too. I may not agree wholeheartedly with every single thing he says, but I don't rabidly disagree as I do with the other candidates.

I will not set food in the USA until you guys get a decent leader there. When I heard that Bush Jr had been nominated, I thought "surely they aren't that stupid" but you all proved me wrong - twice! Yes, I know I know... "he wasn't fairly elected". It was that close that they got away with it - twice! I beg you all to LEARN THIS TIME! Or are you completely unable to see the difference between honesty and utter rot? Even if you are fairly religious and fairly conservative or fairly whatever, consider the "fairlies" of others too. Not one other candidate has anything but extracting what remains of your security and freedom in mind. Leave everyone room to breathe.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by candcantiques
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


I must disagree with your assesment of this bill.This bill involves actually physically helping or participating physically in any type of assault against the US government. This bill mentions NOTHING about speech.
edit on 30-12-2011 by candcantiques because: spelling


Yea i'm gonna have to agree...

But your reply made me think...So what happens when the Federal Government participates in any type of assault against it's citizens?

Nothing so far..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

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)


Yeah... I should have known many ATSers like to remove the context of the original text. I reckon I could have prevented such by writing that question as follows:

In comparison, do you really think revoking one's citizenship is that big of a deal?

Are you really trying to tell me that the "War of 1812" was about the "missing" 13th amendment, and this is why the British burned the US Capitol?

The US Government IS ALL ABOUT what we, the people, think! Unfortunately, many of us don't do it very well, and base our thoughts on misconstrued information... It's kind of like your thoughts on the "War of 1812".

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


What about the other 2 sponsors? Shall we ignore them?

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


When the offense of treason is already punishable by death, the revocation of one's citizenship for the same offense is, indeed, rather insignificant and trivial!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



I don't trust Obama, Bush or *ANYONE* who has worked for or under either of them, period.

That statement seems to imply that you trust everyone else. If so... you are a fool. I trust those of the Occupy movement, and other anarchists, much less than I do those of our military and our other civil servants.

See ya,
Milt



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


I don't vote. I never have.

If you are a US citizen, then you are as much a part of the problem as ignorant voters are. If not, shouldn't you pay more attention to your own backyard?

See ya,
Milt
edit on 31-12-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
The USA has plenty of laws to deal with what ever it needs to deal with NOW! We don't need an extra law, that would for now target US nationals....get it on the books...and it's soon ANY citizen of the US...not just nationals.

I'm amazed how the US has let the GOP restrict people voting, by making all the new rules across the nation, adding all the extra things to get into the polling booth. There is a lot of things going on we never needed before...we don't need them now.

Enough is enough...



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kali74
Well that clears up some of that messy business of denying citizens due process and entering them into indefinite detention doesn't it?



Did our law makers forget they work for us and are supposed to be very specific with legal language?

Very sad times for America.



Great point. But I have said before that communists/socialists have a motto "the ends justify the means" and they will employ any means to their end.
I think this is a slick redo of Wilson's Sedition Act, they just tweaked it a bit to reflect current sentiment on terrorism.
But if they strip us of our citizenship does that also entail deportation somewhere? Or would they put those people in detention centers? Maybe that will be the excuse they need, as the H1N1 flu pandemic doesn't work so well.
edit on 31-12-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


What part of Europe? I mean Britain is snatching children away from their parents for the sin of obesity. Seems the UK is ahead of the US in fascist police state stuff.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


I left the States when I was 23. Who should I vote for? Someone who is a completely witless moron? I don't vote because I don't live there. Do you want people who don't live there making decisions that directly affect your life? I'm not that selfish. My choice is the right one and I will vote when there's someone to vote for.

That whole thing about not voting being the problem is absolute crap. If there is nothing in the world you want, should you still have to buy something because it's Christmas? That's stupid! I will vote when my vote counts. If we want to be fair about voting, we should be able to cast a "none of these candidates represents my values" choice. I would vote every bloody time then, I assure you!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I'm in Finland. For those who don't know where that is, it's right smack between Sweden and Russia. Jealous? lol
But I'm not Finnish and although I'm American, I could see all of this that's happening now coming toward us when I left over 25 years ago. When I told people about it though, they thought I was mad. To me it was as clear as the nose on my face. It was obvious! It still is, though it's taken a lot longer than I had expected. Still, everything has come to pass, just as I had seen it.

Sadly, Finland has changed to espouse many of the unfortunate materialism of the States. Television has polluted the rest of the world with its shallowness and arrogance. It has reduced what were once really nice places with really nice people to the same money-grubbing, self-centered jerks that you see on tv. Not pretty.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


What a freaking "cop out". The truth is: You don't vote because you don't care! Your pretending to care is nothing but hypocrisy!

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenRuled
 


So, how are the terms "purposefully" and "materially" defined in such bills? What is the precedent for their definition and who decides that definition stands...probably not Meriam Webster, but this is what that dictionary says:

Purposeful:

: having a purpose: as a : meaningful b : intentional 2 : full of determination


AND

Material:


a (1) : relating to, derived from, or consisting of matter; especially : physical (2) : bodily b (1) : of or relating to matter rather than form (2) : of or relating to the subject matter of reasoning; especially : empirical
2
: having real importance or great consequences
3
a : being of a physical or worldly nature b : relating to or concerned with physical rather than spiritual or intellectual things


And this is the section added:


‘(8) engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’; ...


Hostility:

a : deep-seated usually mutual ill will b (1) : hostile action (2) plural : overt acts of warfare : war
2
: conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle


So, purposefully supporting ill will toward the US is enough to lose citizenship.

Can we define United States at this point?

I'm being dead serious with this stuff. Definitions are set in stone through precedent. In this case, opposition to the war through protest could easily be seen as purposefully supporting hostilities against the United States if a court finds merit in such a definition



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I'm in Finland. For those who don't know where that is, it's right smack between Sweden and Russia. Jealous? lol
But I'm not Finnish and although I'm American, I could see all of this that's happening now coming toward us when I left over 25 years ago. When I told people about it though, they thought I was mad. To me it was as clear as the nose on my face. It was obvious! It still is, though it's taken a lot longer than I had expected. Still, everything has come to pass, just as I had seen it.

Sadly, Finland has changed to espouse many of the unfortunate materialism of the States. Television has polluted the rest of the world with its shallowness and arrogance. It has reduced what were once really nice places with really nice people to the same money-grubbing, self-centered jerks that you see on tv. Not pretty.


No Im not in any way jealous. I would never want to be that close to Russia. I would leave the States only for a Mediterranean country, or Britain only because they have beautiful countryside.
But I am interested in trying to defend the honor and the freedom of the US not run from the problem. I have the blood of Revolutionary Patriots in my veins(plus I have Scottish ancestry and I cry every time I see Braveheart).
America has been the bulwark of Freedom to the world even in it's diminished state, so let's restore her to her true Destiny as a free and prosoerous people and not burdened with the yoke of some Totalitarian nightmare.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
well since i will no longer be a citizen and will have no rights while i'm in the continental borders of the US, then none of their laws apply to me, and i can do as i wish.......COOL THANX



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Actually, I think not voting is a valid option in many cases. None of the "establishment" candidates express anything I stand for, whatsoever. Obama is a joke of a liberal, but definitely a model Democrat. As far as the Republican line up, it is transparently power-hungry, rich, influential people who get loans from other rich influential people, so they can be even more rich and influential and do the bidding of their moneyed constituency. The whole group is really quite self-loving with no real value system.

Ron Paul could be a good option, but I don't know how I feel about trading peace abroad and at home for no health or educational system whatsoever. The anarchist principles inherent in his ideology may self correct, but is the nation as a whole prepared for the type of turmoil involved in completely obliterating already broken social safety nets that have been necessary due to the state of the nation. Or, will it be less turmoil and more rejoicing when true freedom come down the pike?

We'll see. He probably won't win, but I've always asserted that even on drip, a faucet can fill a bucket. But if there are no drips, the bucket will never fill. The third party candidate might not win this time or next time, but eventually, if more and more people take that option, something will change. If everyone sits and says, it's hopeless, I'll just vote for the Democrat/Republican...well, of course nothing will change, what did you expect?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, when given the option, I'd rather "throw away" my vote on a Nader, Paul or McKinney than sit at home and complain about which Republican or Democrat gets into office this time around.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Anyone who even implies the federal government is restricted in their tyranny to dictionary definitions of terminology used in their "laws", including the un-Holy Constitution, is not only unaware of how the execution of these laws work, but bordering on extreme delusion in general, due to the plethora of obvious contradictions to that premise, every minute and second of their lives.

The entire legal base in the US is and always has been fatally flawed, in that the entire definition and enforcement is wholly and absolutely reliant on the subjective view of whoever is "In Power" at any particular time, and that view has rarely, if ever, been controlled by "we the people", through elections.

They (not we) own the house; they define "legal". No appeal to reason, science, humanity, or even sanity, will prevail when they define these things "legally" within their own "house", and they can back whatever hokey definition they arrive at with "Might Makes F-Right", and use our tax dollars to do it.

The game is, and always has been, rigged. State Rights, Individual Rights, Bill of Rights Rights, God Given Rights, Human Rights, Constitutional Rights, and any other rights you can possibly think of, except Psycho-Sociopathic 1% Terrorist's Rights, don't mean # and they never will, until we somehow reset this joke of in-justice and rewrite it without the inherent loopholes.

One of the most blaring cases of this is the Drug War, Prohibition Part 2. The "subjective" view of the powers that were (who in most cases are the same as the powers that be) at the time of Prohibition 1, was that putting a substance (alcohol) into one's own body was a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and in order to create laws to restrict that right, they had to amend the Constitution. Shortly after that extremely lucrative societal fiasco failed, the "powers" took a closer look at the silly putty like malleability of the Constitution and its mechanisms to define/restrict its own meanings.

Compare that original view, what "we" might consider one of the "absolute" rights of the Constitution, with the current "legal" view or framework of a War that's destroyed several tens of millions of citizens (100s globally) and their families and redistributed several trillions of dollars from the 99% to the 1%, over the 70 some odd years of its duration. Currently, the Constitutionality of the Drug War is based on a totally mind blowingly absurd interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause and the "Absolute" declarations of the FDA and DEA, who have absolutely no duty or fealty to anyone except the 1% "owners", certainly not the electorate, or any objective scientific reality. The total craziness of this absolute farce can be shown by the declaration that cannabis has no medical use while licensing Marinol for years, and then, when that patent ran out, the fed obtained another patent in 2003, and just a few days ago, licensed another BigPharma company, KannaLife, to produce more cannabis based "medicine" to treat very real diseases.

If that's not a clear enough example, you might want to try explaining all these people today, peacefully exercising their "Absolute" rights to Assemble in Public and Redress Their Grievances, getting pepper sprayed, beaten, arrested and convicted of bull# crimes, while the real criminals never get the justice they deserve. Or you might ask why no one's ever been prosecuted for the Kent State Massacre of unarmed, peaceful protesters. Or you might check Wikipedia for the May Day Protest of 1971, where 10,000 soldiers were moved into DC to assist in the mass arrest and detainment of over 12,000 demonstrators, thousands of whom were herded into a makeshift cage and denied food, water and medical help for days.

I think the "General Rule" in cases such as these was exposed quite well by VP Dan Quayle: the 99% say Potato while the 1% say Potatoe.

And if they can't find any other pigeon-hole to stash their tyranny, there's always the General Welfare Clause!
edit on 31-12-2011 by ThomBombadillo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


Shall I vote someone into office who stands for stuff that makes me sick? Shall I participate in things that repress me as a person? Shall I have a spouse who is abusive but lucky me at least I'm married? What is it that you agree with there? Do I have the right to be my own person with my own ideas, morals, aspirations, etc., or shall I wait for someone to assign me a life? If there are liars and cons on the ballot, do I simply vote for the lesser of the obvious evils or do I count my blessings? Shall I impinge on your freedom and negate your vote while you have to live and breathe that result? I may just vote this year, if the bloody US embassy here will open the gate without a full body cavity search first. I will have to do a bit more study into this single, outwardly worthy candidate first though. I don't sign on for just anyone.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join