Hope this does not happen but it's likely that O has planned too.
Armed Revolution! Are you "in or out"?
Never in our country's history have Americans witnessed the travesty of such an anti-constitutional administration and congress. And a great deal of the responsibility falls on both major political parties and the media. However, there are others, including American voters who refuse to intelligently discuss the issues and critically analyze what the administration is doing. As a result, the likelihood of another civil war or second revolution increases with each passing day and each new power-grab by the Obama administration.
This past week, while garnering the largest market share of any news media outlet, Glenn Beck painstakingly analyzed what the Obama administration is really all about and what it is actually doing. There hasn't been one White House denial. At the end of the week, Beck presented five questions Americans should ask their politicians. Questions based in our Constitution. Glenn suggested in the strongest terms that Americans ask their political representatives each of the questions and then following-up with the question "Are you in or out?" And if the representative is not on board with the questions, then Americans need to vote them "out" in the 2010 elections.
Although I completely concur with Mr. Beck with respect to his analysis of this administration and the previous one (Beck is no fan of Bush spending, etc.), there are a plethora of reasons America will not make it to the mid-term elections in 2010. The analysis of this potential reality and a possible scenario follows.
rest of the story:
http://markepstein.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/armed-revolution-are-you-in-or-out/
Here is Websters definition of a conservative.
: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change.
The above article does not advocate preserving what is established. It supports a radical and subversive act for change. I do support the philosophy of calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage). While I do support some changes to the way things are now I do not support this suggestion that we have reach a point of armed revolution. That makes me a conservative and the author of the article a terrorist and not a conservative.
David
that is a Calhounian, nihilistic reactionary.
Sorry, I'm going to start using the terms that I learned at Wichita State and Kansas State for the various political ideologies.
Look them up, cause I'm not typing everything out.
From the center,
Charles
Red, that is an interesting article. A bit short on the time line, but I could see where the author is coming from.
Are you &^%$*&^ kidding me!? Why would anybody even post crap like this much LESS agree with it?
Correct me if I'm wrong BUT isn't this what the "COMMUNISTS" VIET CONG, KHMER ROUGE etc. were doing to the "democratic" south vietnamese which is why we went THERE?
Isn't this what HITLER was doing in EUROPE which is the reason HE had to go?!
Isn't this what the TALIBAN and AL QUEIDA were/are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran and wherever ELSE they can and isn't THAT THE REASON we are THERE?
Now this guy is sayin this is what NEEDS/COULD happen HERE in AMERICA and people are actually reading this and sayin "hey sounds like a plan".............................................
Actually that is a very good asessment of what would happen.
I don't think that folks realize that a good majority of Americans are willing to defend the constitution and will if need be die defending it. But just like in 1776, Most of the people will just sit back and hide til its over. Only the patriots will go out and fight. It won't take millions of people fighting to take back our country from a dictator. Most people don't realize that there is a plethora of miltary armament that is owned by the average joe citizen. And its functional and operational and ammunition for it is easy to obtain without a manufacturing process and the citizens will have the upper hand over todays military because todays military is dependent on manufacutring of their arms whereas the military weaponry that the average joe has can use just about anything for ammunition.
>:( yall seriously think it would be an improvement also I suppose
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 10:27:19 PM
>:( yall seriously think it would be an improvement also I suppose
lets see, get rid of career politicians, corrupt politicians, corrup tadministration, set the govt back to a constitutional government, return the rights of the states back to the states, yeah it would be a heck of an improvement
What about all the killin, rapin and pillagin that's gonna have to happen to get it done? You reckon that's gonna be worth it too? What if somebody decides they don't like YOU and decides YOU need to be one of the ones that has to go? That gonna be cool with you? You still gonna think it's a good idea? What if it's a member of your family? Or a really good friend? YOUR teacher? YOUR preacher? What if they don't like YOUR politics? YOUR religion? You gonna let all that YOU hold dear go down for "the good"? Or is it just if what they want to get rid of doesn't really AFFECT you all that much?
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 10:47:50 PM
What about all the killin, rapin and pillagin that's gonna have to happen to get it done? You reckon that's gonna be worth it too? What if somebody decides they don't like YOU and decides YOU need to be one of the ones that has to go? That gonna be cool with you? You still gonna think it's a good idea? What if it's a member of your family? Or a really good friend? YOUR teacher? YOUR preacher? What if they don't like YOUR politics? YOUR religion? You gonna let all that YOU hold dear go down for "the good"? Or is it just if what they want to get rid of doesn't really AFFECT you all that much?
You know what! Welcome to the horror of war. Don't you think that happend in the civil war when the north raped pillaged killed murdered and destroyed the south!? Sherman and his men slaughtered men women and children, but not before raping the women and burning everything from chattanooga all the way to savanah!
This is the reason the forefathers instituted the constitution to HOPEFULLY avoid war. But just like our forefathers said in the late 1700's, freedom ain't cheap, from time to time it is kept by the spilling of blood.
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/neo-confederates.htm (http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/neo-confederates.htm)
Quote from: srkruzich on August 31, 2009, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 10:47:50 PM
What about all the killin, rapin and pillagin that's gonna have to happen to get it done? You reckon that's gonna be worth it too? What if somebody decides they don't like YOU and decides YOU need to be one of the ones that has to go? That gonna be cool with you? You still gonna think it's a good idea? What if it's a member of your family? Or a really good friend? YOUR teacher? YOUR preacher? What if they don't like YOUR politics? YOUR religion? You gonna let all that YOU hold dear go down for "the good"? Or is it just if what they want to get rid of doesn't really AFFECT you all that much?
You know what! Welcome to the horror of war. Don't you think that happend in the civil war when the north raped pillaged killed murdered and destroyed the south!? Sherman and his men slaughtered men women and children, but not before raping the women and burning everything from chattanooga all the way to savanah!
This is the reason the forefathers instituted the constitution to HOPEFULLY avoid war. But just like our forefathers said in the late 1700's, freedom ain't cheap, from time to time it is kept by the spilling of blood.
Steve what you say is true. The South did the same raping pillaging. We have not exhausted the remedies given to us by our forefathers in the Constitution. We are no where near the point where armed conflict is warranted in my opinion. We have it way better than during the Revolutionary War or the Civil War for that matter. Let's not jump the gun.
David
Quote from: dnalexander on August 31, 2009, 11:03:15 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on August 31, 2009, 10:54:18 PM
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 10:47:50 PM
What about all the killin, rapin and pillagin that's gonna have to happen to get it done? You reckon that's gonna be worth it too? What if somebody decides they don't like YOU and decides YOU need to be one of the ones that has to go? That gonna be cool with you? You still gonna think it's a good idea? What if it's a member of your family? Or a really good friend? YOUR teacher? YOUR preacher? What if they don't like YOUR politics? YOUR religion? You gonna let all that YOU hold dear go down for "the good"? Or is it just if what they want to get rid of doesn't really AFFECT you all that much?
You know what! Welcome to the horror of war. Don't you think that happend in the civil war when the north raped pillaged killed murdered and destroyed the south!? Sherman and his men slaughtered men women and children, but not before raping the women and burning everything from chattanooga all the way to savanah!
This is the reason the forefathers instituted the constitution to HOPEFULLY avoid war. But just like our forefathers said in the late 1700's, freedom ain't cheap, from time to time it is kept by the spilling of blood.
Steve what you say is true. The South did the same raping pillaging. We have not exhausted the remedies given to us by our forefathers in the Constitution. We are no where near the point where armed conflict is warranted in my opinion. We have it way better than during the Revolutionary War or the Civil War for that matter. Let's not jump the gun.
David
Well i'm not saying we are at this point, the article is a good piece in that it poses a theory that could possibly happen. IF obaman and congress did attempt a coup, this would necessitate the action of war. There would be no more remedies available. And i responded to pams post with the facts. This is what will happen, there will be brother against brother, son against father, friend against friend. That is the cost of war. But if freedom is at stake and no remedies are available other than war, then the blood of patriots will be spilled. And that article does a good job of pointing it out what will happen.
THe author is trying to wake up folks especially Washington. THey have gotten so confident in their power, that they think they can do anything. Look, the first war this country had was over taxes and a whole list of other grievances not unlike those we have today. The civil war was fought over states rights, and the taxation and unfair tarrifs that the north forced upon the south.
So its not that farfetched to think that we could have another civil war just over the policies. Remember the Civil war didn't happen overnight. They warned the congress for decades that it was coming if they didn't stop overstepping their constitutional authority.
You know what....I had a REAL firebreathing answer wrote and then I erased it....you want to know why? Because the guy who wrote that article is an idiot. Period. People who think that sounds like a good idea and don't see the hypocrisy involved when we have sent our armies to fight and die against people who were doing the VERY same thing this guy is saying are idiots too.
People are never gonna learn from the s*&^ they screw up.......they'll keep havin the same "revolutions" for the same reasons till we are all gone. All it takes is one idiot with a nuke....................
QuoteIF obaman and congress did attempt a coup, this would necessitate the action of war.
George W. Bush added a directive to the Patriot Act which would give Obama or WHOEVER to TAKE over in the case of an armed innsurection like this guy is talkin about. Don't believe me? Go look it up for yourself.
Coup is overtaking a government right? How does the government stage a coup on itself? (just in case......this is SARCASM) not an actual question.
lol, this article is trash.
Flint-
The info on your website that you posted on this thread is provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
If I recall, this SPLC bunch had more than $150,000,000 in its fund about 3 or 4 years ago. They have a better racket
going than TV preachers.
You must look very favorably to the SPLC to post their info on this forum. Could you be more liberal than you want us to know?
Read on:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/The%20Church%20of%20Morris%20Dees.html
By the way, what do you have against the United Daughters of the Confederacy or any other of the listed organizations on
your website that you posted?
rc
Red, I went back and reread the article. You were right in hoping that this never happens. Personally, I think that if it were to happen it would be the end of this nation. Other than the time-line being way to optimistic, I think that the "rebuilding" process the author imagines is far fetched. I don't think there would be a rebuilding on a national level. I think that the country would be splintered among various groups of one ideology or another. Lawlessness would, in effect, be the law of the land until a group of patriots could become large enough to control an area big enough to sustain an army.
One thing that the author overlooks is the lack or organization, networking, and a command structure of the various patriots groups. That would be the first obstacle to overcome. Until the Patriots can present a united front that in the long run offers real solutions they won't have the support they need from the population to even begin to stage a revolution.
As a side note, you're right on about the SPLC
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 11:26:14 PM
You know what....I had a REAL firebreathing answer wrote and then I erased it....you want to know why? Because the guy who wrote that article is an idiot. Period. People who think that sounds like a good idea and don't see the hypocrisy involved when we have sent our armies to fight and die against people who were doing the VERY same thing this guy is saying are idiots too.
People are never gonna learn from the s*&^ they screw up.......they'll keep havin the same "revolutions" for the same reasons till we are all gone. All it takes is one idiot with a nuke....................
Why do you think our forefathers placed the 2nd amendment in our constitution? It sure ain't for hunting! It is there to secure our freedoms, and make sure that we have the ability to what is espoused in this article.
Quote from: pamsback on August 31, 2009, 11:35:15 PM
QuoteIF obaman and congress did attempt a coup, this would necessitate the action of war.
George W. Bush added a directive to the Patriot Act which would give Obama or WHOEVER to TAKE over in the case of an armed innsurection like this guy is talkin about. Don't believe me? Go look it up for yourself.
Coup is overtaking a government right? How does the government stage a coup on itself? (just in case......this is SARCASM) not an actual question.
They don't have the power to overthrow the people. :) THe Constitution does not grant them that power and the patriot act cannot grant them that power either. If they tried, there will be quite a few folks that would just roll over and let it happen. The rest will however, say enough.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on September 01, 2009, 05:03:14 AM
Red, I went back and reread the article. You were right in hiping that this never happens. Personally, I think that if it were to happen it would be the end of this nation. Other than the timeline being way to optimistic, I think that the "rebuilding" process the author imagines is far fetched. I don't think there would be a rebuilding on a national level. I think that the country would be spintered among various groups of one ideology or another. Lawlessness would, in effect, be the law of the land until a group of patriots could become large enough to control an area big enough to sustain an army.
One thing that the author overlooks is the lack or organization, networking, and a command structure of the various patriots groups. That would be the first obstacle to overcome. Until the Patriots can present a united front that in the long run offers real solutions they won't have the support they need from the population to even begin to stage a revolution.
As a sidenote, you're right on about the SPLC
one thing he doesn't address in the article is the fact that if this were to happen, there would be a secession of states that would provide the needed organization and command structure.
SRK you are preachin to the choir here. Don't mistakenly believe I am some dumb "liberal" who knows nothin about her history and her heritage. Just because I don't feel the need to trot out chapter and verse every time I have a conversation doesn't mean I don't have them at my disposal. Difference between me and a lot of people is I tend to learn BOTH sides of the story.
I refuse to let yall pigeonhole me. I am NOT a bleedin heart liberal..I am NOT a hardcore conservative...I am in all actuality both sides AND the middle on different subjects.
Take the site Flint posted for instance.......although I have NO use for "white supremacy" I defend the right to display the flag of my ancestors as a tribute. I however DO not think the South was right in a lot of their thinkin aka slavery....the people my family had in the Confederacy didn't even OWN slaves.
I TOTally support maintaining Confederate monuments and a LOT of the so'called southern lifestyle and I do not think havin pride in your ancestors makes you racist.
I will NEVER go back to where women are considered less than men.....given the "blame" for bringin "sin" into the world...I don't agree with it and I refuse to perpetuate it. Even if you totally buy that story Adam could've kept his pants on so to speak.
I will NEVER support war when there is ANY alternative....if I stand and fight it will be for what I believe in not somebody elses agenda....make no mistake I WILL stand.
As for the PAtriot Act....Presidential directive 51...."Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency. (Italics mine.)
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.
The directive further says that, in the case of such an emergency, the new position of "National Continuity Coordinator" would be filled by the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
The directive also specifies that a "Continuity Policy Coordination Committee", to be chaired by a senior director of the Homeland Security Council staff, and selected by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be "the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination".
What happens is another "civil war" except that it wouldn't be a secession of states over states rights, but rather a fight over ideologies. To me it is a no-win situation because like fighting terrorists, there is no definitive place or known organizations that are clearly defined as one's enemy.
Our constitution should stand in that things have to be accomplished in the political process. Obviously, that didn't work in 1860 and won't work now. But, that is the way that things have to start--------------with the political process, not armed revolution.
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on September 01, 2009, 09:17:47 AM
What happens is another "civil war" except that it wouldn't be a secession of states over states rights, but rather a fight over ideologies. To me it is a no-win situation because like fighting terrorists, there is no definitive place or known organizations that are clearly defined as one's enemy.
Our constitution should stand in that things have to be accomplished in the political process. Obviously, that didn't work in 1860 and won't work now. But, that is the way that things have to start--------------with the political process, not armed revolution.
Larryj
I agree, but if the politicians don't submit to the will of the people then you have no choice but to require them to submit by use of force. Right now we're seeing them ignore the people over this health care bill. More and more people are saying NO to the healthcare bill and the dems are just saying ohhh its not the will of the people. Their hell bent on pushing through their idea of what the people need not what the people want.
The same crap is going on with the cap n trade bill. The same crap is going on with the spending of billions of dollars to bail out banks, to bail out industry, to bail out everyone but the American people.
They are not serving the people, their dictating to the people.
Obama won an election, pretty handily too. If people don't like him, vote him out in 4 years. Thats the constitutional way of doing things.
Quote from: Anmar on September 01, 2009, 09:34:49 AM
Obama won an election, pretty handily too. If people don't like him, vote him out in 4 years. Thats the constitutional way of doing things.
he's fine as long as he doesn't violate the constitution. IF he tries that, he's going to be history.
Good Grief...It's Animal Farm all over again! Or maybe leaning toward Lord of the Flies?
QuoteOr maybe leaning toward Lord of the Flies?
Yknow that is one movie I can NOT watch? I read the book years ago and it didn't bother me but I decided to watch the movie one night when I was by myself and kept gettin more and more upset and when it got to the part where they pushed that boulder off on that fat kid that was tryin to stay "civilized" I got so pissed I started cryin and yellin at the TV! That is the ONLY movie that has ever done that to me. Joe and the kids came in and thought somebody had died or somthin :P I do not know why it affected me like that but I felt almost the same anger and disgust readin that article that started this whole thread.
Quote from: redcliffsw on September 01, 2009, 04:32:28 AM
By the way, what do you have against the United Daughters of the Confederacy or any other of the listed organizations on
your website that you posted?
rc
I have nothing against organizations that are honest in their assertions of honoring the memories of the fallen soldiers of the Civil War, both sides.
However, I will not sit idly by and allow links to people who are not honest about their true intentions go by without comment.
Red, I hope you do realize that the links you provide often go to people or organizations that renounce the existence of the 13th, 14th, and 15th admendments to the Constitution. They keep revising their tactics and message, but they are still the political decendants of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Charles
Quote from: flintauqua on September 01, 2009, 03:09:11 PM
Quote from: redcliffsw on September 01, 2009, 04:32:28 AM
By the way, what do you have against the United Daughters of the Confederacy or any other of the listed organizations on
your website that you posted?
rc
I have nothing against organizations that are honest in their assertions of honoring the memories of the fallen soldiers of the Civil War, both sides.
However, I will not sit idly by and allow links to people who are not honest about their true intentions go by without comment.
Red, I hope you do realize that the links you provide often go to people or organizations that renounce the existence of the 13th, 14th, and 15th admendments to the Constitution. They keep revising their tactics and message, but they are still the political decendants of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Charles
You do realize that Nathan Bedford Forrest dissolved the Klan when the Klan changed its ideology from going after the carpet baggers to going after non whites and jews don't you.
Right . . . N B Forrest had nothing but love for non-whites and those of the jewish faith. . .Right
I'd hate to live in a country that believed what he did about self-determination.
Quote from: flintauqua on September 01, 2009, 04:05:02 PM
Right . . . N B Forrest had nothing but love for non-whites and those of the jewish faith. . .Right
I'd hate to live in a country that believed what he did about self-determination.
He didn't hate non whites or Jewish, he didn't give a rats fanny about what they do. The reason he formed the klan was because of the carpet baggers coming in from the north raping and pillaging the south after the war. In the beginning it was a noble organization stopping the activities of the northern groups coming in stealing everything around. Then when they went to lynching, he called for the dissolution of the Klan as it had lost its honor.
BTW his slaves fought for the south of their own free will. He gave his slaves their freedom for their service.
::)
I've got a rebuttal, but have better things to do at the moment.
Flint, what in the article that Red posted was linked to a racist organization?
Quote from: srkruzich on September 01, 2009, 06:46:53 AM
one thing he doesn't address in the article is the fact that if this were to happen, there would be a secession of states that would provide the needed organization and command structure.
I disagree. I think that one of the first things that the federal gov't would do is to activate the national guards units, so their goes alot of the command and control the states could provide. Don't forget that it would be in the interest of state leaders to comply with federal mandates. I know that alot of service members would defect, but alot of others would not. But even with the addition of military personnel to the patriots ranks, it would still take a while to get organized. It would be in the interest of Patriots to organize, preplan, set up a logistics plan of operations, establish safe houses and fall back points, means of communication, etc. before this happened.
Quote from: BillyakaVarmit on September 01, 2009, 06:44:44 PM
Quote from: srkruzich on September 01, 2009, 06:46:53 AM
one thing he doesn't address in the article is the fact that if this were to happen, there would be a secession of states that would provide the needed organization and command structure.
I disagree. I think that one of the first things that the federal gov't would do is to activate the national guards units, so their goes alot of the command and control the states could provide. Don't forget that it would be in the interest of state leaders to comply with federal mandates. I know that alot of service members would defect, but alot of others would not. But even with the addition of military personnel to the patriots ranks, it would still take a while to get organized. It would be in the interest of Patriots to organize, preplan, set up a logistics plan of operations, establish safe houses and fall back points, means of communication, etc. before this happened.
Theres a multitude of folks that have bug out supplies stashed for that very reason. :) 6 months worth of food, ammo and rations stored in various locations :) And with the ability to be mobile with PDA's and other hand held devices for communication, they will have little trouble keeping in communication.
Flint-
You can call me a political descendant of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
You won't offend me. I'd be quite pleased with the honor, even
with it coming from the left. Thank you.