Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 97

Thread: Terrorist Congress Declares War on American People

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    613

    Terrorist Congress Declares War on American People

    2A protects 4A... or so we thought...

    Just in case any of you have been under a rock recently:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQExM...layer_embedded

    Call your senator and tell them that "High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's government" and laws outlawing our 4th amendment fit into that category. Conspiracy to violate the 4th amendment is a CRIME. I am freaking PISSED and McCaskill and Blunt belong in JAIL, and I am calling them here in a bit to tell them so.

    McCaskill 202-224-6154
    Blunt 202-224-5721

    (insert your senator in this thread or on your state thread and get the word out please)

    (on speed dial)

    Please take time to let them know. I am risking it and I have 9 children. Can you do less?

    Thanks!!
    Last edited by peterarthur; 12-05-2011 at 01:51 PM.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________

    "The problem with Internet quotes is that no one has verified the source" -- Abraham Lincoln

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    holy ****...

  3. #3
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    I can't see whatever it is

    Posted using my HTC Evo

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Shall we react to the report of the bill? Or to the actual text of it?

    The text was posted in another thread an was a big yawner. Care to post the actual bill that you feel so threatens our rights?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Shall we react to the report of the bill? Or to the actual text of it?

    The text was posted in another thread an was a big yawner. Care to post the actual bill that you feel so threatens our rights?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Not the original poster but here it is for your reading pleasure all 926 pages of it in PDF form.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s1867es.pdf

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    You remind me of the lawyer who responds to a subpoena with a truckload of paper with the relevant 3 pages hidden in plain sight within the mass of deforestation.

    I am afraid I'll have to be painfully explicit: Can you cite the specific portion of the bill that you feel threatens your rights. Someone posted the offending paragraphs in another thread and they were a real (and grossly misrepresented) yawner.

    It seems more and more that getting folks fired up is more important than there being something to really be fired up about. Does not make us look too rational here.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Shall we react to the report of the bill? Or to the actual text of it?

    The text was posted in another thread an was a big yawner. Care to post the actual bill that you feel so threatens our rights?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Quote Originally Posted by 9026543 View Post
    Not the original poster but here it is for your reading pleasure all 926 pages of it in PDF form.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...112s1867es.pdf
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You remind me of the lawyer who responds to a subpoena with a truckload of paper with the relevant 3 pages hidden in plain sight within the mass of deforestation.
    Hmmmmm...

  9. #9
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Hmmmmm...
    Yea, he wasn't too clear about what he was wanting. But I understood what he was meaning.

    I have been trying to find it.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Anyone who fears the bill should not have to look up the part they fear. They ought to be able to cite chapter and verse. I see a lot of reaction to the fear-mongering and zero reaction to the bill.

    Again, it should not be too hard to find. Someone posted the "offending" part in another thread. It is a yawner. It does not say what the fear-mongers are mongering.

    Folks, stop following the crowd. Read for yourselves. Think for yourselves. Be outraged when you KNOW about a real danger, not when someone says there is one, but won't back up their assertions with quotes and facts!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
    Last edited by eye95; 12-05-2011 at 10:37 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Once again, I ask for specifics from the bill.

    For all the hand-wringing, you'd think that one person could cite a specific threat from the bill.

    It seems not.

    Bandwagon fretting.

  12. #12
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q50h7u2L5Y

    Senator Rand Paul seems to be one of the fear mongers. Senator McCain's response is interesting. I do not know if the video was edited to add McCain for affect.
    I see it completely opposite of you ... Rand Paul is asking pertinent questions about just what criteria is going to be used to determine if an American Citizen is a terrorist threat ... criteria that have been publicly announced, such as returning war vets, someone with more than 7 days of food in the house, protecting ammo by 'weather proofing' (mil surp ammo cannisters?), having more than one gun in the house?

    And McCain's response is ... if they are terrorists by a vague and yet-to-be-determined list of criteria, then they need to be removed from being a terrorist WITHOUT DUE PROCESS?????

    If this is representative of the posts that you delete, then I can certainly see why.

    BTW - according to just the short list I used for example here, I qualify under 3 of the 4 criteria ... well, for the next 3 weeks, anyway
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  13. #13
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q50h7u2L5Y

    Senator Rand Paul seems to be one of the fear mongers. Senator McCain's response is interesting. I do not know if the video was edited to add McCain for affect.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I heard it completely opposite from you. Senator Rand Paul is arguing for a amendment to the legislation to completely remove the 'detainment' provisions.
    So, now you are reversing your assertion that Rand Paul seems to be one of the fear mongers?
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  14. #14
    Regular Member 09jisaac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Louisa, Kentucky
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    BTW - according to just the short list I used for example here, I qualify under 3 of the 4 criteria ... well, for the next 3 weeks, anyway
    You smash your finger in the door and they will see it as a sign that you're going 4 for 4 and take you on down the cuba.

    (I sure hope you're not missing a finger, cause then that joke won't make sense.)

  15. #15
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A great deal of pretzel logic is being applied to this issue.
    Show me where I have twisted ANYTHING

    You are the one quacking out of both sides of your mouth
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  16. #16
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Rand described possibilities as to why the legislation should be amended to remove the 'detainment' provisions. He did not cite past cases of US citizens being detained in this country, though not all of his remarks were shown in the video, to support his assertion that US citizens will be detained because this 'law' will be abused.
    First, there is no requirement of citation of past cases when discussing legislation and it's POSSIBLE AFFECT on the future. Second, he also didn't need to cite any of the MANY past misuses of abuses of laws to support the possible abusive application of this law.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    His descriptions were in fact used to monger fear. I'll read his remarks from the record and get back to you. If he cited even one case, then I'll retract the appropriate comments.
    Defense of the Bill of Rights and it's protections is fear mongering? Don't bother reading his remarks, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the proposed legislation VIOLATES our Bill of Rights which is the point he was making.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Pretzel logic to conclude that what is being claimed will happen, will in fact happen. There is no guarantee that this legislation will be signed into law (veto) and then a potential veto be overridden.
    So you do not think the federal government will NOT abuse the proposed legislation to violate US Citizen's civil rights? Ruby Ridge, Waco, radiation experiments in the 1950s on orphans, eminent domain, IRS, Obamacare, CIA, Homeland Security, BATFE, Patriot Act, TSA searches at airports, just to name a few programs the Feds and States have violated individual and collective civil rights of US Citizens.

    Quack quack
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  17. #17
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Once again, I ask for specifics from the bill.



    ...Bandwagon fretting.
    Remember the "Pied Piper"?
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  18. #18
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Past illegal government action against US citizens have occurred. However, many cases have resulted in criminal and civil trials where the government and or its agents were adjudicated to have violated the law, with appropriate penalties applied (matter of perspective), or settlements between the affected parties agreed upon.

    I do not read where a US citizen, or lawful resident alien can be legally detained and their constitutional rights be legally violated within the US.
    Quite the opposite.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  19. #19
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295
    I believe you're referring to this section of the bill:

    SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

    (a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.
    (2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--
    (A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and
    (B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.
    (3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.
    (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.
    (b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-
    (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.
    (2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

    Which, on its face, makes it seem that U.S. Citizens and resident aliens are exempt. They're not. This section says that the REQUIREMENT for military custody does not apply to U.S. citizens. It does not say that you are exempt from being held at the discretion of the military. It only says that the military is not required to hold you.
    Last edited by Bobarino; 12-06-2011 at 01:27 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    500
    the fact that this is even being discussed goes to show you how far down the toilet we have flushed this country in the name of fighting "terrorism". Anyone with half a brain should have seen things like this coming as congress waved american flags and "debated" the Patriot act.

    every law, every tactic, every bullet, every bomb....you must take the time to consider the consequences should these things ever be turned against the citizens. We need to stop with the tunnel vision and face up to the real problems and find real solutions.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    OK, so we are all scared that the law says that the military is not required to detain American citizens???

    I'd kinda be worried about laws that say that the military IS required to detain American citizens, not those that outlaw such a requirement!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,011
    I understand that Pres. Obama has said he will veto it due to vague language.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Given the context of the OP, quite the opposite of what?
    I'm agreeing with your statement: "I do not read where a US citizen, or lawful resident alien can be legally detained and their constitutional rights be legally violated within the US." It is 'quite the opposite' of the fear mongers' interpretation.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  24. #24
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    First, there is no requirement of citation of past cases when discussing legislation and it's POSSIBLE AFFECT on the future. Second, he also didn't need to cite any of the MANY past misuses of abuses of laws to support the possible abusive application of this law.



    Defense of the Bill of Rights and it's protections is fear mongering? Don't bother reading his remarks, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the proposed legislation VIOLATES our Bill of Rights which is the point he was making.



    So you do not think the federal government will NOT abuse the proposed legislation to violate US Citizen's civil rights? Ruby Ridge, Waco, radiation experiments in the 1950s on orphans, eminent domain, IRS, Obamacare, CIA, Homeland Security, BATFE, Patriot Act, TSA searches at airports, just to name a few programs the Feds and States have violated individual and collective civil rights of US Citizens.

    Quack quack

    haha this is funny
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    First, there is no requirement of citation of past cases when discussing legislation and it's POSSIBLE AFFECT on the future. Second, he also didn't need to cite any of the MANY past misuses of abuses of laws to support the possible abusive application of this law.



    Defense of the Bill of Rights and it's protections is fear mongering? Don't bother reading his remarks, that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the proposed legislation VIOLATES our Bill of Rights which is the point he was making.



    So you do not think the federal government will NOT abuse the proposed legislation to violate US Citizen's civil rights? Ruby Ridge, Waco, radiation experiments in the 1950s on orphans, eminent domain, IRS, Obamacare, CIA, Homeland Security, BATFE, Patriot Act, TSA searches at airports, just to name a few programs the Feds and States have violated individual and collective civil rights of US Citizens.

    Quack quack
    The Federal Government are the Authority to exercise Power. If we as a citizenry prefer a Federal Government that does not function as it was established to function, then we must hold a Constitutional Convention, or as an alternative, belly-ache day in and out about the overreaching of the so-called Federal Government. This is just a hunch, but even if the former did occur, if there is a centralized government established, then you will have a Federal Government that functions in this way. Not that the States would handle themselves any better. The Founding Fathers were looking for a cohesive Union, and one where the tyranny of the States (the Founding Fathers believed was more likely that a tyranny of the Federal Government), or the potential of the tyranny of the States would have a Supreme Authority to Power to answer to. It appears that the "general government" as some term it, was a lesser of two evils.

    Don't misunderstand me when I am appealing to the 'authority' of the Founding Fathers. They are dead. They left a document, the Constitution, a living breathing document, that is subject to change based on interpretation of the Constitution as it applies to the current state of affairs in the U.S. I despise appealing to authority, but figured I can do it from time to time without making a habit of it. The only purpose the Constitution has is the purpose that we give it, and the derivations over the generations that have encompassed interaction with the Constitution. No document, no matter who it was designed by, no matter what their best intentions were, should subject any future generation to a rigid set of rules - THAT, my friends, is a tyranny over The People!
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 12-07-2011 at 08:26 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •