visitors. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/cc60citz.html
When the revolution initially takes power, there will be certain transient effects. It is absolutely necessary to prevent either the old (socialist) regime from returning or a new dictatorship from filling the political void. The transition period will entail apparent violations of the Bill of Rights, neither intended nor avoidable. The concept to grasp here is that the transition period is really a continuation of the revolutionary war. The next revolution is not over when the shooting stops, it must continue until the government is remade and accepted. As in all war, there is no substitute for victory.
The consolidation of the revolution requires a certain amount of confiscation and redistribution of assets and real estate. This cannot be done slowly or the revolution will lose momentum and bog down. The uncertainties would destroy the economy and allow time for enemies to escape. It must be done quickly, even if some minor mistakes are made; mistakes can be corrected later. The power of the enemy lies with his money, property, and news media as well as his guns. To disarm the enemy requires confiscating these assets. Economy dictates widely disbursing these assets, principally by rewarding revolutionary fighters. To keep these assets as government property is to invite dictatorship. To leave them in the enemy�s hands is to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. To simply destroy them is waste.
The situation is like shooting it out with an armed robber; after he surrenders would you give him his gun and getaway car back? Since he is a robber, it is reasonable to assume that all he possesses is stolen or bought with stolen money. In addition he has to pay for his crimes by a loss of freedom. In exact analogy, those who have stolen our birthright and our prosperity under color of law are in reality armed robbers of the worst sort. Their property should be seized and they should forfeit their freedom to prevent their repeating their crimes. Frankly, it would be foolish to put these people in prison, except as a temporary holding tank until their case was decided. It would be better all around to simply revoke their citizenship.
A defeated army is not given its guns and trucks back. The lucky soldiers get to keep their boots and get reeducated. They get no paycheck and no pension. Usually, reeducation is just too expensive and uncertain, so the defeated army is disbanded and scattered into the civilian economy to find useful work.
As a concrete example, consider the felon known as Senator Kxxxxxx. His fortune is ill-gotten and should be removed since it is the source of his power. His citizenship should be revoked since he would vote (again) to repeal the Bill of Rights either directly or discretely. As a convicted felon, he would lose part of his rights as determined by a jury; possibly restrictions on his public free speech and his right to bear arms.
It must be strongly emphasized that wealth is seized from the enemy, NOT from the honest rich. The fortunes of those who earned it honestly, or even won it by luck, cannot be touched. Those who got rich by political favors or graft, and those who espoused and contributed to the destruction of the Bill of Rights, must forfeit their wealth. HCI would obviously be confiscated, while MADD could not be touched.
This brings up the point that not all people who live in the USA are full citizens. Citizenship is not automatic, it is a privilege that must be earned by civic action. Those who serve their 6 mo. term in the military/police, pass militia and literacy tests, and are freeholders are full citizens. The others are something less; their voting and possibly exercise of the Bill of Rights are restricted. Just as no one would suggest that children should have all the rights of an adult, neither should aliens and the unqualified vote; they are politically children. An otherwise qualified person who is not a freeholder might have to get a permit to own and/or use heavy weapons; a full citizen would be under no such restriction. Everyone has the right to self defense - the full citizen has the right to overthrow the government. Aliens do NOT have that right, that is called invasion.
Even a full citizen has certain limits. Since the Bill of Rights is a statement of natural, God given rights, a person does not have any right under the first Amendment to propose eliminating these rights. Nor would the 2nd Amendment give anyone the right to shoot or even threaten at gunpoint an innocent bystander. A jury should have no trouble deciding these cases.
Clearly, a child born to illegal aliens inside this country should never be considered a citizen. In like manner, a child born to a traitor who has lost his citizenship must be considered a resident alien. He must earn his citizenship just like a foreigner. To be a true citizen, a person should be born to citizen and raised by them in this country. Others need some form of corrective education or tests to counteract alien concepts. This is not to suggest that foreigners are inferior, merely that as a group they will bring along mental baggage that would tend to subvert the Bill of Rights. If all Germans believed in the Bill of Rights, then Germany would have its own Bill of Rights. German immigrants to the USA presumably have a better respect of the Bill of Rights than those staying behind, but it is not the same as growing up with them.
What we are saying is that an immigrant can be a resident and a Taxpayer, but not a Juror or Elector. His children born in this country can earn citizenship. One who has forfeited his citizenship is an alien. His children are immigrants, but cannot vote. His grandchildren can earn full citizenship.
Nick Hull, < [email protected] >
Secretary, Committees of Correspondence
2702 Kimbrell Road, Lenoir City, Tennessee 37772
865-856-6185
Counter says visitors.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/cc60citz.html