As with all things even remotely connected to the Obama administration, nothing is ever as it seems. I just received the following email from Oath Keepers and thought it worth sharing. Please feel free to do the same.
“Directly on the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that arguably makes US Citizens detainable by the military, comes the coup de grace in the form of a new bill called the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act.’
But before I get into this bill let me preface that with a few observations.
First, our nation was founded upon the principle of individual liberty and self-determination. A belief that all men were created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights imbued within each of us at the time of our birth. We did not, and do not, derive our rights from government and therefore cannot legally have them taken from us by that government.
Second, as our Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government is to secure the rights of its citizens, and as important, they derive their powers from the consent of the people. I ask you to think upon the following question in light of the previous statement: If the government derives its power from the people, how can the government wield power that the people do not have? If the people do not have such a power then the government, on their behalf, cannot likewise yield such power.
Third, the federal government was created by consent and compact, a Constitution. Within that Constitution the branches of government were laid out, defined, and scope assigned. Each branch of government was given certain powers to act for the betterment of the nation as representatives of a collective set of nation states that recognized the need for a single voice in foreign matters and as an arbiter between the states to ensure regular trade and commerce between the states and settle disputes.
To ensure that the federal government did not go further than the prescribed powers they enumerated the legislative powers of the government to a few distinct areas (Article 1, Section 8). But they went a step further, to emphasize the point to the federal government and to put to rest some resistance within the states, that federal government would not stay confined, they added the Tenth Amendment stating: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’
Now I ask of you; with the enormity of our federal government, with its massive spending, size, and laws that reaches into every aspect of every citizen’s life, is our government today one of limited power? I think the answer is a blatant no.
So how does a government, such as ours, go from limited power that literally had no direct impact on the lives of the citizens of the states to one of tyrannical proportions? You cannot make improvements to your own property without permission and paying a tribute. You have the flow of toilets and shower heads dictated to you on what you can and cannot have. We have been using incandescent light bulbs for years but now the government is forcing you to use highly toxic, mercury filled, bulbs (for our own good). And the list of expansive government powers is as long as the list of government agencies and sub-agencies within the federal government. But it did not happen overnight.
We have heard from those of this administration that they do not want crises to go to waste. This is not a new concept – every major governmental expansion has been preceded by one crises or another, manufactured or real, it does not matter. Politicians know that they can take advantage of the public, using their positions of power, during times of national crises and pass laws they know they would not be able to do otherwise.
Inch by inch, nudge by nudge, taking more and more power with each passing legislative session until one day we will (have) awake to find ourselves living under an unconstitutional tyrannical government. I do not say this lightly, I have spent most of my adult life in the service of my country and have offered up my life if need be, but I am abhorred by what I have seen her become.
This brings me to this newest legislation by ‘our representatives’ in Congress. This is Senate bill S. 1698, entitled as the ‘Enemy Expatriation Act.’ This bill is two pages, a novelty in the age of 1,000+ page bills, and states (relevant parts):
SEC. 2. LOSS OF NATIONALITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.-Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) is amended-
(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).’
For those not familiar with legislative bills there may not be anything that stands out from the above bill wording – and that is by design. By just reading the words above, under the title of ‘Immigration and Nationality Act’, we see that this affects those people who are ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’
One would reasonably conclude that what they are talking about would be those terrorist spies who come to America and gain citizenship and use that access to attack us, right? I’m sure that is part of the reasoning but who else is caught up in this legislation and would be affected by it?
Well if we look at the underlying US Code that it is modifying we see that the ‘who’ this is targeting is (8 U.S.C. 1481):
‘(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality-’ (Emphasis added)
Just as the wording was placed in the NDAA to include US Citizens here too you have to follow the crumbs of obfuscated law back to the source. And if you have any doubt that a national, born or naturalized, is a ‘Citizen of the United States;’ Black’s Law Dictionary, Version 7 gives the generic and specific definitions. The common term national means simply ‘a member of a nation.’ Then under the specific ‘national of the United States,’ and this is who our laws are written for, it states ‘A citizen of the United States or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States… Also termed U.S. national; U.S. citizen.’ In the eyes of the government the terms are synonymous.”
The aforementioned legislation has been submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee and is yet another excuse to indefinitely detain Americans without due process or legal counsel.