A Geek With Guns

I know the title of this post won’t come as a surprise to you guys but Romney really does take the cake for being a total dick (OK Santorum is still worse but not by much). A dying medical marijuana patient flat out asked Romney if he would arrest medical marijuana users and their doctors. Romney’s response? He doesn’t answer the question and then ignores the poor dying bastard:

Romney did say he doesn’t support any form of marijuana but what he really should have said is, “If you think you’re in pain now just wait until I have you thrown in the slammer with Bubba. Hell I may just have some federal agents burst into your home and kill you right on the spot you stupid peasant.”

Asked the same question but the same man got an entirely different answer from Ron Paul:

Unlike Romney,Paul won’t use violence to enforce the erroneous drug war. What you put into your body is your own damned business whether you need the substance for medical reasons or are a recreational user.

Remember the prohibition of marijuana is done by law and like all laws it must be enforced with the use of violence. By supporting the war on drugs you are literally agreeing that federal agents should be allowed to murder those who grow, sell, or use marijuana. Romney obviously has no quarrel with the idea of using federal agents to murder this sick guy and his doctor. It’s one reason in a million why I won’t vote for Romney no matter what.

It’s kind of sad when you think about it. The Democrats are going to field Obama again while looking at the Republican Party candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, makes one absolutely depressed. Remember those guys that have been appearing on our television screens for months now are the best the Republican Party could dig up (again I’m not counting Paul since the Republicans are doing everything they can to ensure he doesn’t win the nomination). More and more it looks like the race will be between Romney and Obama, something that makes me downright depressed. Consider that, a man who walks around wearing a boot on his head makes the most sense:

At least he’s upfront and honest about being a fascist and a tyrant. He will also go back in time and kill baby Hitler with his bear hands and that’s pretty hard to ignore.

The election season is ramping up and results from state primaries are already rolling in. Obama, er, I mean Romney has won straw polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which has ramped up the “Ron Paul can’t win” bandwagon. Many people, especially in the gun community, are now talking about voting for the lesser of two evils to ensure Obama gets tossed out of office.

I’ll start by stating up front that I’m not big on the whole voting for a ruler thing. In fact this picture sums up my belief on voting:

As a sovereign individual I see no need for rulers and have no desire to choose one. If I’m going to get fucked with a switchblade why do I care who is holding it? It’s going to hurt just as much if Romney is holding the switchblade as it will if Obama is holding it. With that said I also realize that we’re currently stuck with manor lords so I may have to play the game to help ensure I get the “less” shitty ruler. Realizing this who do you think I’ll vote for if Romney gets the nomination?

Simply put, I won’t.

OK if Ron Paul decides to run as a third-party candidate I’ll toss him a vote and if he doesn’t I may still go to put in a vote for Gary Johnson. Either way I won’t be voting for Romney or Obama because I refuse to support either of them. No matter which of those tyrants wins we’re all going to lose. Many people are saying they will vote for whoever gets the Republican nomination because we need to get rid of Obama. What’s the point if voting for either major party gets us Obama though? Romney isn’t Obama light, he’s white Obama. The only thing that really separates the two is the fact Romney is white, a mormon, and has political experience (something I don’t believe to be a good thing by the way).

When you vote you’re making a suggestion. Your ballot should read, “The names I’ve checked below are the individuals I suggest be granted the power to run my life and initiate violence against me should I violate one of their decrees.” The reason I’m willing to suggest Ron Paul is because he has no desire to run my life or initiate violence against me. Romney on the other hand not only wishes to run my life but he also desires to initiated violence against me and people in other countries. Fuck that guy, I’m not suggesting he be put in charge of anything, especially a military.

Many people will claim I’m part of the problem because by not suggesting Romney I’m automatically suggesting Obama. It doesn’t work that way. That logic assumes my vote is cast whether or not I actually check a box next to somebody’s name. According to these people were the vote count 100 for Romney and 100 for Obama my lack of a vote would mean 101 of Obama. See how that math doesn’t work? By not voting for Obama his count still remains at a solid 100. Hell in the grand scheme of things my vote doesn’t matter anyways so feel free not to blame me if Obama wins.

When you vote for the “lesser” of two evils you’re still stuck with evil. If you want to suggest Romney to run your life by all means go to your polling place and vote for him. While I refuse to suggest him I won’t demand you do the same but I do ask that you not scream at me for “voting for Obama” or “being part of the problem.” If you do that I’m going to scream back at you for “voting for white Obama” and “being part of the problem.”

In the end if either Romney or Obama becomes president I’ll just kick back, relax, and say, “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for him.”

Everybody is cheering about the death of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA):

In a surprise move today, Representative Eric Cantor(R-VA) announced that he will stop all action on SOPA, effectively killing the bill.

Huzzah! Hurray! Let’s all go out for drinks and celebrate!

Before we do there is one minor detail that needs to be brought up, SOPA isn’t dead. While the house version, H.R.3261 is effectively dead, it’s sister bill in the Senate, S.968 the PROTECT-IP Act, is still alive and well:

PIPA is less well known than SOPA, but the provisions are basicly the same. It still includes the same DNS blocking and censoring system that the original SOPA did, just without the SOPA name. There are around 40 co-sponsors of the bill in the Senate so far, with no word on how many senators support the bill in addition to that. There will most likely need to be 60 votes in the Senate in order to invoke cloture and end an almost guaranteed filibuster.

Much like the need to remove every head of a hyra, both bills in our legislative body must be killed before this erroneous legislation is truly dead. Hell I’m pretty sure our “representatives” purposely gave the bills two different names in the hope one’s death would lull people into a false sense of security while the other bill was ramrodded through both houses and signed by the president.

I’m sure all three people who were supporting the Huntsman campaign are sad to hear about his departure from the race:

“The governor and his family, at this point in the race, decided it was time for Republicans to rally around a candidate who could beat Barack Obama and turn around the economy,” campaign manager Matt David told the New York Times.

On the upside it appears as through we just netted ourselves another Ron Paul endorsement…

“That candidate is Governor Mitt Romney.”

Or Huntsman is an idiot, that was my second guess.

Apparently the best way to “beat Barack Obama” is to run a carbon copy candidate against him and hope the voting public will get confused and check the box next to Republican Obama instead of Democrat Obama. Romney winning the next presidential election isn’t a victory for anybody but the big government and police state advocates.

Statists often claim that the government is necessary to fund research that private interests won’t. While I entirely disagree with this at least most of the statists have the decency to also state any research paid for with public funds should be made freely available. Unfortunately for statists the state doesn’t agree:

THROUGH the National Institutes of Health, American taxpayers have long supported research directed at understanding and treating human disease. Since 2009, the results of that research have been available free of charge on the National Library of Medicine’s Web site, allowing the public (patients and physicians, students and teachers) to read about the discoveries their tax dollars paid for.

But a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month threatens to cripple this site. The Research Works Act would forbid the N.I.H. to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece. In other words, taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results.

This is the only result of the statist ideology. Unlike libertarians, statists believe government is benevolent and will work for the benefit of humanity. In truth the state believes that the people are peasants who exist only to serve those in charge through labor and taxation. Those in power are the only ones who benefit from statism, we individuals are merely forced to pay for it.

One criticism of Ron Paul I hear frequently has to do with his foreign policy. Many people do not like Paul’s noninterventionist policy and believe preemptive strikes are necessary for the security of the United States. During every Republican presidential candidate debate the issue of Iran comes up and many people strongly oppose Dr. Paul’s policy of leaving them to their devises.

One of my readers, plblark, e-mailed me yesterday and asked if I would write an analysis of Dr. Paul’s stance on Iran, a subject I am always more than happy to spend time on the keyboard about (yes if you wish to read my analysis of something feel free to e-mail me and make a request, I have no problem fulfilling most requests).

The situation in Iran is incredibly complex and involves a great deal of history. Before we can discuss Dr. Paul’s foreign policy as it relates to Iran today we must first look to the past and find out how that country arrived at its current societal structure.

History

Iran wasn’t always the despotic religious state that we know today. In fact many people are surprised to learn that Iran, at one time, had a democratically elected government and was a fairly peaceful state. In 1925 Reza Khan overthrew the Qajar dynasty and began programs to industrialize Iran and construct railroad infrastructure throughout the country. Unfortunately the rulers of Iran decided to establisher closer ties to Nazi Germany during World War II, which lead to an invasion by Britain and Russia to obtain power of the Iranian railroad infrastructure.

In 1951 the prime minster of Iran, Ali Razmara, was assassinated and replaced by Mohammad Mosaddegh in a parliamentarian vote. Mosaddegh was very popular with the people of Iran but made a decision that ultimately lead to his overthrow, he nationalized the Iranian petroleum industry.

Nationalizing the petroleum industry did not go over well with Britain who imposed an embargo immediately afterward. In 1953 Britain and the United States instigated a coup d’état and overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, replacing it with a brutal authoritarian dictatorship.

After 26 years of this authoritarian regime the people of Iran finally had enough and revolted in 1979 establishing the current government of Iran. People who have lived under harsh conditions are usually willing to align themselves with anybody who can promise salvation from the current oppressors. In the case of Iran salvation came from anti-Western followers of Islam.

The Aftermath

As you can imagine a civilization brutalized by a Western establish dictatorship developed a very strong anti-Western culture. Revolutions are commonly followed by a period of developing cultural hatred of those who had previous oppressed that civilization. The Iranian revolution was no different and the new leaders wasted no time instilling an even stronger hatred of the United States and Britain in the populace. Part of the reason for instilling such a strong hatred was to give the people an enemy, which would make them more willing to comply with the demands of the new regime.

If you need an example of this look at the current United States and terrorism. The United States government uses terrorists as the boogeyman to justify the passage of authoritarian legislation that strips rights form the people of the country. The United States and Britain are the Iranian government’s equivalent to our government’s terrorists.

Another reason for instilling hatred of the United States and Britain in the people of Iran was to prevent a future overthrow of the government. The United States and Britain had caused the last overthrow, which lead to 26 years of despotic rule and the new leaders of Iran didn’t want to see it happen again. This hatred has lead to a rejection of everything perceived as Western including manner of dress and culture. The current regime is a direct result of United States interference in the country.

The Situation Today

Knowing previous interference in Iran directly lead to the current anti-Western culture you would think the United States government would be doing everything in its powers to make amends or at least alleviate the country’s fears. If the fear of Western invasion and a return to a more brutal dictatorship is what allows the current government of Iran to rule with an iron fist removing those fears would be the fastest way to foster another popular revolution. Instead of doing so the United States government has done everything in its powers to perpetuate those fears.

Since the 1979 revolution the United States has done nothing but threaten invasion and establish numerous economic sanctions that are acts of war. Those Washington bureaucrats are helping the current Iranian regime continue to hold their power. Remember economic sanctions are extremely detrimental to the people of the targeted country. Sanctions placed on Iraq by the United States lead to malnutrition and sickness due to lack of clean drinking water. Iraq was also one of the few Middle Eastern countries investing in educating women but that was stopped as more resources had to be poured into military assets. The Iraqi sanctions, like the Iranian sanctions, only helped the dictatorship maintain power over the populace who was being harmed by United States actions.

Iran is also in pursuit of nuclear technology, which they claim will be used to provide power and the United States government claims will be used for weapons development. Truth be told I believe the latter because it only makes sense. Iran is under constant threat of United States invasion and the Iranian government knows the United States hasn’t invaded a nuclear armed country. Therefore in the eyes of the Iranian government the best way to stave off a United States invasion is to become a nuclear armed nation.

Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy and Iranian Salvation

Now that I’ve laid out the situation it’s time to talk about Ron Paul’s foreign policy and what it means for Iran. Paul’s foreign policy is noninterventionist, meaning he doesn’t believe one country should involve itself with the politics of another country. As a libertarian Paul also subscribes to the non-aggression principle, which states the initiation of violence is always wrong. The only legitimate use of violence is in response to violence initiated by another.

Therefore Paul is against warring with countries unless they attack first. In the case of Iran Paul would lift the current sanctions and cease the constant threats of bombing and invasion. On the surface this policy looks to be a bad move because of the fear of Iranian attack. You can never judge a book by its cover and you can never look at foreign policy solely by viewing the surface.

Without the credible threat of the United States the government of Iran will lose its boogeyman. Once their boogeyman is removed and the people have something to do besides fear another United States invasion they are going to begin looking at their current situation. Historically revolutions that have lead to freer societies have been done when outside threats of invasion are either nonexistent or highly unlikely. The United States revolution for instance was done at a time when invasion from a non-British force was fairly difficult and unlikely. Had the United States been under constant threat of invasion from Russia it’s unlikely the Revolutionary War would have happened because the people of the colonies would have felt the need of British military might for protection.

Thus the chances of popular revolution would become greater as the people of Iran stopped fearing Western invasion and stopped feeling the need to submit to the current regime. Lifting the current sanctions against Iran would also improve the quality of life for the people living there. Doing this would cause the people to see the source of their strife no longer being United States interference but the current Iranian regime. Were the current Iranian regime no longer viewed as necessary for protection and instead the source of current strife the chance of a popular revolution will increase even further. Even if popular revolution were never to arise it would still reduce the Iranian government’s current fears of the United States. While it’s unlikely the Iranian government would begin peaceful relations with the United States with any immediacy they would likely reduce their hatred of our country and focus their energies elsewhere.

Then there is the claim of Iran allowing anti-American terrorist training camps to exist within their borders. I have no way of verifying one way or another if that is true but I can say this much: allying with anti-American terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda would make perfect sense if your country is facing the threat of an American invasion. When a large militarily superior force is threatening your country you’ll take all the help you can get. The current foreign policy of the United States encourages countries like Iran to assist and ally themselves with anti-American forces. Remember the United States is not innocent of such alliances either. Our government supported Pol Pot, the ruler of Cambodia who butchered two million of his own people, because he had been overthrown and replaced by a pro-Soviet force. In the eyes of the United States supporting a man who committed genocide was considered acceptable so long as it was done in the name of opposing communism. Moral high ground is not something our government can claim.

An Exaggerated Threat

Now that I’ve explained the benefits of a noninterventionist foreign policy in relation to Iran let’s talk about the actual threat. Every Republican debate seems to involve fear mongering by Paul’s competition, we hear claims that establishing a worldwide Caliphate and brining Jihad against the World are in the Iranian Constitution. That’s an outright lie. In fact if you look at the Iranian Constitution’s statements regarding foreign policy you’ll see it’s quite peaceful (I’ve actually had an immigrant from Iran review the Iranian language of the Constitution to confirm this English translation is accurate):

Article 152

The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonist superpowers, and the maintenance of mutually peaceful relations with all non-belligerent States.

Article 153

Any form of agreement resulting in foreign control over the natural resources, economy, army, or culture of the country, as well as other aspects of the national life, is forbidden.

Article 154

The Islamic Republic of Iran has as its ideal human felicity throughout human society, and considers the attainment of independence, freedom, and rule of justice and truth to be the right of all people of the world. Accordingly, while scrupulously refraining from all forms of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, it supports the just struggles of the mustad’afun against the mustakbirun in every corner of the globe.

Article 155

The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran may grant political asylum to those who seek it unless they are regarded as traitors and saboteurs according to the laws of Iran.

For reference mustad’afun translates roughly into oppressed people and mustakbirun would be the oppressors. The use of those words as stated in the Quran generally refers to the followers of Mohammad being oppressed by those who are not followers such as the Pharaoh.

While one can’t judge the actions of a government based on the contents of a country’s constitution you can at least verify what is stated by reading the document. Since Paul’s competitors are lying about the contents of the Iranian Constitution it’s fair to say they’re likely lying about others topics involving Iran.

Let’s talk about the fear of a nuclear armed Iran since that appears to be a hot topic. First we should review some history involving the Cold War. During the Cold War the United States people were fed stories about the raw power and might of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately those fears were oftentimes stretched truths or outright fabrications. The following is an excerpt from pages 407 and 408 of Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA:

William J. Casey, the most vociferous member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, had been talking with some of his friends and associates in the intelligence community. They were convinced that the CIA was dangerously underestimating Soviet nuclear strength. Casey and his fellow members of the advisory board pressed President Ford to let an outside group write their own Soviet estimate. The team, whose members were deeply disenchanted with détente and handpicked by the Republican right, included General Daniel O. Graham, America’s leading advocate of missile defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, a disillusioned arms-control negotiator and a future deputy secretary of defense. In May 1976, Bush approved “Team B” with a cheery scribble: “Let her fly!! O.K. G.B.”

The debate was highly technical, but it boiled down to a single question: what is Moscow up to? Team B portrayed a Soviet Union in the midst of a tremendous military buildup—when in fact it was cutting military spending. They dramatically overstated the accuracy of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. They doubled the number of Backfire bombers the Soviet Union was building. They repeatedly warned of dangers that never materialized, threats that did not exist, technologies that were never created—and, most terrifying of all, the specter of a secret Soviet strategy to fight and win a nuclear war. Then, in December 1976, they selectively shared their findings with sympathetic reporters and opinion columnists. “The B Team was out of control,” Lehman said, “and they were leaking all over the place.”

While the Soviet Union was cutting military spending reports created by handpicked government cronies claimed Moscow was in the midsts of a tremendous military buildup. Our government knowingly lied to the American public in order to increase fear of the Soviet Union. Lying is not new to our government and it’s far more likely that the government is lying about Iran than their claims being accurate.

Let’s consider what it will take for Iran to become a nuclear threat to the United States. First off the leaders of Iran would have to be entirely retarded to believe a nuclear strike on the United States would result in anything besides the entirety of Iran being turned into glass. Ruling over a big chunk of glass is pretty pointless so the power hungry Iranian leaders would likely not enjoy their country being obliterated.

The next thing to consider is the difficult of a nuclear strike from Iran to the United States. Developing a nuclear weapon isn’t the hardest thing to do and if the Iranians really want one they can likely buy one from a former Soviet republic for a pretty fair price. For argument’s sake let’s assume Iran has a nuclear device and desire to have their country reduced to a big glass hunk. What will they need in addition to the nuclear weapon? A delivery method.

Delivering a nuclear weapon from Iran to the United States isn’t an easy task. In order to do so Iran would need an intercontinental ballistic missile, a nuclear submarine, a cargo ship, or an airplane. A cargo ship and an airplane are easy to spot and the United States government isn’t too keen on letting unknown craft into their territory so those two options can be ruled out by common sense leaving the option of an intercontinental ballistic missile or a nuclear submarine.

Developing either technology is extremely difficult, far more than developing the nuclear weapon itself. In order to be successful either delivery method would have to be stealthy enough to avoid detection by our defenses and capable of defeating our defenses if detected. We’ve been a nuclear armed country since World War II and were in a heated competition with the Soviet Union for better nuclear weapons and countering defensive technologies. Our ability to detect submarines is far in advance of Iran’s nonexistent submarine development program. Getting a missile off the ground and heading towards the United States without our knowing is also going to be very difficult. Then you need to consider the sheer difficulty of developing either technology, it will take decades and it’s unlikely Iran would ever be able to catch up to us considering the massive head start we currently enjoy.

Even if Iran has a nuclear weapon the are going to have a very difficult time getting it here. I’m sure somebody will say a suitcase bomb could be smuggled into the country but that person is an idiot since suitcase sized nuclear weapons only exist in the fruitful minds of fiction writers. In order to cause any notable damage a fair amount of fissionable material is needed and that material is bloody heavy. Along with the fissionable material you’d also need either an implosion device to properly detonation the nuclear material or a method of slamming a slug of nuclear material into a larger chunk of nuclear material. We should also be realistic, a country that hasn’t developed a single nuclear weapon at this point certainly isn’t going to miniaturized one to the point of fitting in a suitcase.

The threat of Iran is highly exaggerated and our current foreign policy towards the country is directly causing the current friction between our two countries. Paul’s foreign policies would greatly reduce the hardships facing the people of Iran, remove the current Iranian government’s boogeyman that helps it maintain power, and would be the most likely method of fostering a positive revolution in the country. On top of that the other candidates are outright lying about the contents of the Iranian Constitution and are likely lying about everything else. In fact the Pentagon has even reported that Iran’s primary concern is repelling attack:

The document goes on to make this key statement, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

But what if the unpredictable Ahmadinejad and company in Tehran suddenly changed their strategy and decided to go on the offensive? Fortunately they would not have the capability according to the DoD which states, “At present Iran’s forces are sufficent to deter or defend against conventional threats from Iran’s weaker neighbors such as post-war Iraq, the GCC, Azerbaijan or Afghanistan but lack the air power and logistical ability to power much beyond Iran’s boarders or to confront regional powers such as Turkey or Israel.“

If the Pentagon isn’t concerned with Iran’s nuclear program giving them a first strike capability why should anybody else? After all the Pentagon’s job is to be extremely paranoid.

The bottom line is the entire situation regarding Iran is overblown. It’s an attempt to create another boogeyman to scare the American people into blind obedience. An interventionist foreign policy is what created the current problems in Iran, and will only continue Iran down its current road to militarization and anti-Western attitude.

Rick Perry was scrounging for some brownie points from the gun community at the end of ABC’s debate by brining up the fact he likes to unwind by hitting the shooting range:

“Just relaxing a bit @ Red’s Range before we leave for New Hampshire!” @governorperry tweeted Friday along with a photo of himself wearing a green sweatshirt and a baseball cap with a firearm in hand.

On the campaign trail, Perry, a staunch defender of second amendment rights, has not been shy about talking about his “long love affair” with guns.

“It was a long love affair with a boy and his gun that turned into a man and his gun, and it turned into a man and his son and his daughter and their guns,” Perry told reporters before a pheasant hunting trip with Iowa Rep. Steve King in October. “It’s, I think, one of the great American traditions is taking your family hunting.

Now numerous people in the gun community are jumping on the Rick Perry 2012 bandwagon. Let’s all take a second to step back and remember what Rick Perry is, a tyrant. Rick Perry is the same candidate who advocated an invasion of Mexico as a strategy in the War on Drugs and issued an executive order forcing girls to be injected with the HPV vaccine, which could possibly cause paralysis (sadly it’s such a new drug we don’t know enough about possible side-effects but hey drug company campaign contributions cay make such pesky details vanish).

Politicians pander to communities in order to get votes. They do this because pandering works and many single issue voters exist in the world. Yet even if Rick Perry is an advocate of the Second Amendment facts are none of us will be able to afford new guns or ammunition if the economy entirely collapses and Perry has no fucking clue about economics. On top of that if he’s willing to send troops into Mexico to enforce a United States prohibition you can guarantee he’s in favor of seeing troops into other countries we have no business being in. Don’t like the fact Perry goes to the shooting range and supports the Second Amendment fool you into supporting him, on every other ground he’s horrible.

On the other hand there is another pro-gun candidate (I’d argue far more pro-gun than Perry) who actually understands economics and supports every civil liberty running for presidential candidate named Ron Paul. I’m just saying why support a tyrant when you can have a true supporter of liberty?

The European Union is feeling a bit jealous of Joe Lieberman’s ability to bring tyranny down upon a populace and have decided if they can’t beat him they’ll just join him:

Internet users may soon be asked to ‘flag’ for police review any web content they believe might incite terrorism, under new counterterrorism proposals put forward in Europe.

The ‘flagging’ mechanism is one of a number of initiatives proposed by a group of European Government officials participating in the ‘Clean IT Project’.

When (these things are no longer a matter of if) this passes I’m sure my site will get flagged as promoting gun rights, liberty, and unregulated commerce is likely an act of inciting terrorism in the European Union. In fact I would feel downright horrible if my site didn’t get flagged because I try really hard to be against everything the European Union is for (namely tyranny).

Asking people to flag ‘terrorist’ websites is nothing more than an evolution of asking neighbors to spy on their fellow neighbors. Only the introduction of anonymity is really different and that anonymity may make things far different as neighbors no longer have to worry about being caught spying on their fellow neighbor before turning them into the Stasi. On the other hand the denizens of the Internet are a notoriously fickly and anarchistic group and will likely use any flag feature to troll the living shit out of those who read through the reports. How many times do you think a reviewer is going to be stuck reviewing a Rick Astley video or horrible porn?

During the passing of the PATRIOT Act so many years ago many people were arguing the act violated the Bill of Rights. As this debate went on many “representatives” in government claimed that the Bill of Rights only protected citizens of the United States. It appears as though out government is sick of even this restriction and are moving to enact legislation that would grant the government power to revoke American citizenship:

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. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists.

Information related to the bill including the full text can be found here. As it common for these tyrannical pieces of legislation Joe Lieberman is one of the primary sponsors. The exact text of the legislation is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act’.

SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.

(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)’.

Once you citizenship is revoked Obama no longer has to worry about his empty promise to not detain American citizens as he can first have their citizenship revoked.

The war on terror has resulted in some of the most idiotic actions being labeled as terroristic meaning grounds for revocation of citizenship may become something as minor as insulting the government of the United States. With the way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised to see a return of the Alien and Sedition Acts with a new clause claiming those in opposition of the government be labeled terrorists and treated as such.

We live in dark times where we no longer enjoy any rights whatsoever. Free speech, protections against illegal search and seizure, and protection against self-incrimination are nothing more than illusionary.