TSA to Test Operators for Radiation – Enemy Expatriation Act: Nazi Nuremberg Law – SOPA: Shelved Indefinitely
H.R. 3166 and S. 1698 further destroy the once great Republic.
Brian D. Hill
USWGO Alternative News
January 15, 2012
The Enemy Expatriation Act (H.R. 3166; S. 1698), an act that the U.S. Congress is now considering, that will allow the U.S. Government to take away citizenship of anybody that is considered a hostile enemy or supporting hostility towards the U.S. Government, is similar to the Nazi Factions Nuremberg laws where Adolf Hitler took away Germans citizenship based on race, bloodtypes, and those against the Hitler regime.
“If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States” in a news article by RussiaToday News.
The United States Government is actively passing laws mirroring the Nazi regime before they started killing anybody who was Jewish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Politically against the Nazis or even Hitler himself, and attacked those that helped Jews and other political fugitives escape or hide in Nazi Germany.
Chuck Baldwin posted on Infowars that the “Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”
The Nuremberg Laws were established in 1935 were antisemitic laws in Nazi Germany introduced at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party. Despite whether you are pro semitic or antisemitic, it is a very good idea to pay attention to the passing of the Enemy Expatriation Act, because Hitler first passed laws to get rid of certain Germans citizenship due to certain races and those against Hitler’s eugenics philosophies, right before he sent them to the Concentration camps aka death camps since the laws took away their citizenship.
So all the U.S. Pentagon, Northcom, the White House, the Capitol, or any agency in the U.S. government has to do is put out propaganda against certain races (bloodtypes), political groups, religions, and individual beliefs and any U.S. citizen that meets the attack propaganda quotas will instantly lose their citizenship, be secret arrested and detained without a court trial under the NDAA, and then sent to death camps to be exterminated.
You’re probably wondering why U.S. citizens that lose their citizenship will be exterminated by their Government? Because as hundreds of natural born U.S. Citizens lose their citizenship in America and in the event no country will accept deportation of U.S. Citizens, the U.S. government will encourage death since there will be no way the taxpayers would want to pay loads of tax payers money to pay for hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens given illegal status and lose their citizenship status plus having no country to be deported to.
This will pave the way for the death camps in America to kill those that lose their U.S. citizenship to keep the budget deficit good, and also in cases where no foreign country will grant deporting Americans that lost their citizenship status to their country.
The Enemy Expatriation Act is no different then the Nuremberg laws because they both took away natural citizenship of citizens due to meeting certain racial and political criteria that was considered a threat to the Nazi regime or in this case the establishment in America.
The suspension of rights and then citizenship is what happened in Nazi Germany. Be aware this is now happening here in the good ole United States.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Amid significant pressure from tens of thousands of internet users and major web behemoths like Google, Facebook, and Reddit, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) is, in its current form, Dead on Arrival:
Misguided efforts to combat online privacy have been threatening to stifle innovation, suppress free speech, and even, in some cases, undermine national security. As of yesterday, though, there’s a lot less to worry about.
The first sign that the bills’ prospects were dwindling came Friday, when SOPA sponsors agreed to drop a key provision that would have required service providers to block access to international sites accused of piracy.
The legislation ran into an even more significant problem yesterday when the White House announced its opposition to the bills. Though the administration’s chief technology officials officials acknowledged the problem of online privacy, the White House statement presented a fairly detailed critique of the measures and concluded, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” It added that any proposed legislation “must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet.”
Though the administration did issue a formal veto threat, the White House’s opposition signaled the end of these bills, at least in their current form.
A few hours later, Congress shelved SOPA, putting off action on the bill indefinitely.
Sponsored primarily by purported free speech advocates that include democrats and republicans alike, the SOPA would have fundamentally transformed the internet as we know it today. As Daisy Luther writes at Inalienably Yours, the bill was nothing short of a direct attack against the first Amendment and the right to free speech:
On closer inspection, the legalese in the bill has the potential to eviscerate free speech….and like NDAA, without proof…only with suspicion of “wrong-doing”. It’s all about copyright infringement. If you tick off the powers that be, and you’ve quoted someone, somewhere, saying something, you may have infringed on their copyright. As a defendant, you are not even present at the legal proceeding allowing “them” to shut you down until you prove yourself innocent.
How do they shut you down? Search engines are required to remove you from their listings. Internet Service Providers can be ordered to block access to your site. Advertising networks and payment providers can also be forced to cease doing business with you. This continues until you are proven INNOCENT. Wait – I thought it was innocent until proven guilty….oh….that was “before” the NDAA.
While this bill of goods was being sold to the American public as a way to reduce online piracy originating on foreign shores, in essence the legislation would have made it possible for any organization (with the financial assets and access to attorneys to do so) to target web sites (foreign or domestic) using excerpts, quotes, and videos without express permission of the authors or producers of such content. Furthermore, any web site linking to suspected copyrighted content would be guilty by association for fascilitating the infringement.
By linking to and excerpting Daisy’s article above, for example, this particular web site, and anyone who republishes this article, excerpts it, or pulls a link from it, could be shut down on the service provider level until such time they prove their innocence.(*Note to DHS, et. al.: Daisy has given us permission to reprint her article or portions of it, and the excerpt from Washington Monthly has been reprinted under Fair Use to advance understanding of this political and Constitutional issue*)
The scariest part of the legislation, as Daisy points out above, is that due process would have been eliminated (just like in the NDAA), forcing internet providers, search engines and ad networks to simply shut down a web site(s) based on just the complaintant’s accusations, leaving those web site owners who were shut down to deal with the fallout with costly legal expenses and lengthy court battles.
You may recall that in 2010 the government shut down 73,000 web sites in exactly this manner. Though the owners of the majority of the targeted sites were not technically infringing copyrights, some were linking to other sites that did, making them an accessory.
Even more alarming is the ability, under legislation such as SOPA, of the government to control the flow of information across major internet providers. Articles or videos criticizing political figures or policies could easily be targeted, as they were in October of this year when the government moved to shut down rogue publishers of critical content .
What it boils down to is that SOPA was an attempt to put the power of information back in the hands of an elite few who are rapidly losing the ability to control what the masses are reading, hearing and seeing. Alternative news and ‘extremist’ information was the target (and still is).
While we applaud President Obama (yes, we agree with him on this move) for formally issuing a veto threat, we remain skeptical of his motivations. This being an election year, the last thing the President needs to be dealing with along with the economic crisis and tensions in the middle east, is the protests of millions of voters who would have undoubtedly taken to the streets when access to their favorite web sites like Youtube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter were shut down because of alleged SOPA violations.
Moreover, we aren’t one bit convinced that this veto was done in the interests of free expression, as the administration may claim. In November, the President issued a similar veto threat about the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows for the detention of American citizens determined to be threats to national security and public safety on the domestic (U.S.) battlefront. He flip-flopped on the issue just a couple of weeks later, and signed the bill into law over New Year’s weekend to complete silence from the mainstream media.
It is our view that SOPA, in one form or another, will return with a vengeance.