LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Deleted.You tell me? Maybe this is why the FDA is saying vaccines are safe, to disable our young men. Autistic men won't be a security issue.
Last edited:
Deleted.You tell me? Maybe this is why the FDA is saying vaccines are safe, to disable our young men. Autistic men won't be a security issue.
Strange the government is so open with its purchase of all this ammo for evil purposes. Wouldn't a real evil government have done this all much more secretly?
Strange the government is so open with its purchase of all this ammo for evil purposes. Wouldn't a real evil government have done this all much more secretly?
There were no Chinese communists massing at the border and Germany never made any move at all to take over S.America and move through Central America towards the USA.
,,,,,,, and now that is has been explained that DHS is not buying an unusual amount of ammo, that this is handgun ammo (not particularily useful in any 'war'), that it is of a caliber that would not fit any US military weapon (a group known to have the ability to fight 'wars'), that DHS is NOT buying tanks (a 'tank' is an armoured vehicle but not all armoured vehicles are 'tanks'),,,,,,, do you agree that the paranioa of the OP is misplaced?
That does settle it , right MaGZ?Here is a follow up to Sen Coburn's request to the DHS
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/28830?c=federal_agencies_legislative
That pretty much kills that CT
Not that it will ever truly die.
Here is a follow up to Sen Coburn's request to the DHS
http://www.gsnmagazine.com/node/28830?c=federal_agencies_legislative
That pretty much kills that CT
Not that it will ever truly die.
That does settle it , right MaGZ?
That's just babble.
Well, let's see, is that the exact same report that Clayton has already dismissed out of hand?
Be honest, how many of you said "Yes" before you even clicked the link?
LOL
JD, you crack me up.
Don't you know that the DHS is run by the Mossad?
nuh-uh, and its obvious.
If Mossad ran that organization it would be the SHDII (Security of the Homeland Department It Is
Chertoff was born on November 28, 1953 in Elizabeth, New Jersey. His father is Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff (1915–96), a Talmud scholar and the former leader of the Congregation B'nai Israel in Elizabeth. His mother is Livia Chertoff (née Eisen), an Israeli citizen and the first flight attendant for El Al.[3] His paternal grandparents are Rabbi Paul Chertoff[4] and Esther Barish Chertoff.[5]
He is an Israeli dual citizen. Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, "shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by...voting in a political election in a foreign state." The U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well. No other country holds this special exception of citizenship.
Body Scanners
Michael Chertoff has been an advocate of enhanced technologies, such as full body scanners.[22] His consulting firm Chertoff Group (founded 2009) represents manufacturers of the scanners. [23] [24]
Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer
LOL
JD, you crack me up.
Don't you know that the DHS is run by the Mossad?
"Many a true word is spoken in jest"
Former Secretaries of Homeland Security
Michael Chertoff, February 15, 2005 – January 21, 2009
Tom Ridge, January 24, 2003 – February 1, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_ChertoffHe is an Israeli dual citizen. Section 401 (e) of the 1940 Nationality Act provides that a U.S. citizen, whether by birth or naturalization, "shall lose his [U.S.] nationality by...voting in a political election in a foreign state." The U.S., in its special relationship with Israel, has become very sympathetic to allowing Israeli-Americans to retain two nationalities and allowing U.S. citizens not only to hold public office in Israel, but to hold US government positions as well. No other country holds this special exception of citizenship.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.[1][2] The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a Polish-born man who had voted in an Israeli election after having become a naturalized U.S. citizen, but the Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court overruled one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.
The concept of dual citizenship, which previously had been strongly opposed by the U.S. government, has become more accepted in the years since Afroyim.[3] In 1980, the administration of President Jimmy Carter concluded that the Bancroft Treaties—a series of bilateral agreements, formulated between 1868 and 1937, which provided for automatic loss of citizenship upon foreign naturalization of a U.S. citizen—were no longer enforceable, due in part to Afroyim, and gave notice terminating these treaties.[85] In 1990, the State Department adopted new guidelines for evaluating potential loss-of-citizenship cases,[86] under which the government now assumes in almost all situations that Americans do not in fact intend to give up their citizenship unless they explicitly indicate to U.S. officials that this is their intention.[87] As explained by Peter J. Spiro, "In the long run, Afroyim's vision of an absolute right to retain citizenship has been largely, if quietly, vindicated. As a matter of practice, it is now virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it."[4]
Lying Nazis are Lying, not that there's any great surprise there.
Question for MaGZ:
now that is has been explained that DHS is not buying an unusual amount of ammo, that this is handgun ammo (not particularily useful in any 'war'), that it is of a caliber that would not fit any US military weapon (a group known to have the ability to fight 'wars'), that DHS is NOT buying tanks (a 'tank' is an armoured vehicle but not all armoured vehicles are 'tanks'),,,,,,, do you agree that the paranioa of the OP is misplaced?