VIOLENCE AND SEDITION - What Will The Left Think Of Next?

Interestingly, the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats in government have labeled those of us who attend TEA Parties as "inciting violence" and "seditionists". Obama finds us "amusing"... your President finds concerned Americans who disagree with the direction in which he is sailing our "ship of state" to be "amusing"!

I have attended two Tea Parties locally, and have yet to witness any acts of violence, and have not yet heard a call to commit acts of violence. In fact, the only acts of violence I have even heard of are those committed against the TEA Party attendees by supporters and sympathizers of the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats. A cowardly demonstration of attempting to provoke peaceful TEA Party attendees into acts of physical violence against the socialist turncoats.

Sedition is defined thus - "Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason." I don't know that there have been any acts of sedition associated with the TEA Party movement. If so, they were not sponsored or condoned by the TEA Party movement. But, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, in spite of the fact that the left-wing, Marxist, socialist-progressive Democrats wish to deny that Constitutionally protected right to those who voice disagreement with them.
Perhaps they have an understandable guilt created by diverting our government from its intended course, and an attendant fear that they will someday be held accountable for their treasonous acts by We the People.

The last statistic I heard regarding the Constitution dealt with the Tenth Amendment (States Rights), which states in plain English - "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.". The statistic I refer to reported that 33 states had reaffirmed their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Now that may just be "window dressing" - like a couple reaffirming their marriage vows -, or it may be a precursor to secession. Could secession be considered an act of sedition? I suppose it could be if it were left up to some radical left-winger to define. But the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of the English Language defines secession to be - " 1 : withdrawal into privacy or solitude 2 : formal withdrawal from an organization." In other words, it's a simple statement saying, "I refuse to play your game any more because you want to change the rules the game was established with." If you can understand that then you have a grasp of the meaning of secession. It means a state - or states - chooses to remove itself from the Union of States.

Washington has turned a deaf ear to the conservative voices in this country... and THAT is the worst possible action the government could take. George III failed to hear the voices of the American colonists until December 16, 1773 - the night of the original Boston Tea Party. The rebellion against tyranny is not only expected of free men, it is required of them when rebellion becomes necessary to maintain that freedom. As Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Jefferson was also - by today's definition - a "seditionist", condemned to be so by his own words. Read carefully and thoughtfully... "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." He suggested that the people take arms against any tyrannical ruler. Along that same line, his view of the Second Amendment (Keep and Bear Arms) was quite elegant - "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." And - "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Attempts to erode and subvert the intent of the United States Constitution. Seditious speech? It would only considered as such by those who fear a free people.

Surprisingly, Jefferson also had views on government bailouts, stimulus packages, welfare and national health care, even though he had no exposure to such things -
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. "
"Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now."
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

The seeds of violence and sedition have been sown by those who thought it wise to blame the conservative right for such actions on nationwide television and radio. There were no such acts supported, coordinated, or condoned by the conservative right prior to April 18, 2010. There may be random acts of individuals here and there, but violence and sediton is not the goal of the conservatives. On the other hand, I once saw a bumper sticker that read "WHEN REASON FAILS, FORCE PREVAILS", which seems to be the motto of all international negotiators.

I wonder how "amusing" Obama will find the TEA Party movement in November...

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FOMENTING REVOLUTION?

Intentionally or unintentionally it appears that the current administration is doing everything it can to incite the American people toward revolution. Is it possible that Obama is unaware that his policies, appointments and decisions thus far have made mainstream America very nervous... or is it that he just doesn't care? Since his apotheosis, Obama must be absolutely certain that he is smarter than his worshipers - which really does "track" if you think about it. After all, how smart could those who have deified Obama be?

His concern now is focused upon those of us who would neither wear the rose-colored glasses, nor adopt the necessary Pollyanna-ish attitude of "everything will be wonderful when Barack and his band of socialist/Marxist/communist/totalitarian appointees take over our government". It's probably not a great, devouring, sleep-loss type of concern, for surely he sees us as intellectually inferior, pitiful beings who just missed the opportunity to support him. I'm sure he can't ignore the fact he didn't get our votes simply because we could see through the smokescreen and ignore the mirrors... and now he must silence us.

Do we all understand that the purpose and function of government? It's "raison d'etre" is control? This is true of all governments, regardless of the type of governance...

Dictatorship - generally considered a Draconian-type of rule, a dictator usually assumes office through acts of violence, and retains that office through the same methods. The dictator lacks those bothersome restrictions provided by a constitution, and there are no laws providing for recognition of opposing points of view. A tyrant, a despot, one whose "my way or the highway" leadership style is enforced by armed thugs and an unarmed general population. Total control.

Monarchy - this one begins with the words "once upon a time", because once upon a time the "rule" of ruling was that most governments were monarchies of some sort... and the monarch initially gained control by force of arms, and was then self-designated as Emperor, King, Queen, Shah, etc.. Hereditary rule is often the defining characteristic of a monarchy. Once totalitarian in nature, many monarchies have become "constitutional monarchies", providing their subjects with the comforts of constitutional protections.

Communism - a communist state exhibits a form of government characterized by single party rule, and are generally based on either Marxist or Leninist philosophies. Additional parties may be allowed, but the communist party is always given dominance in government. In many respects the communistic form of government is not that distant from a dictatorship, and often enforces its internal will by force of arms. Total control through force of arms when deemed necessary.

Democracy - there are two types of democracy: pure and representative.
In a pure or direct democracy power rests in the assembly of all citizens who wish to participate. This assembly might pass executive actions, make laws, elect and dismiss officials, and conduct trials. A representative democracy, such as the United States should have, is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people (as opposed to a direct democracy).

Republic - there are Constitutional Republics and Parliamentary Republics. I will only outline the Constitutional Republic here, inasmuch as it is the type which we in the USA experience (the other type isn't necessarily bad... it's just not relevant.). In a constitutional republic the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and (at least theoretically) must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the governments power over the people.

There are several other forms of government, but they are generally ineffectual, and not in direct practice these days, and therefore are not really worth including... so I won't!

The government of the USA is - purportedly - a representative constitutional democratic republic. Unfortunately, one of the shortcomings of a representative democracy is that although an official is elected to represent his/her constituents, it is not required that they represent the expressed will of those constituents.

About now you're probably thinking, "Okay, so get to the point of the post title. Exactly how is this administration "fomenting revolution?" (Understand that I will probably just scratch the surface of those actions that have been taken in contravention of the constitution, since I only have access to those acts that have been made public.) I enumerate:

1. Government bailing out American financial institutions and two-thirds of the American automobile manufacturing industry. There is no Constitutional precedent for such actions. These businesses developed financial troubles because of exorbitantly high executive salaries, bonuses, lavish expense accounts, and greedy union labor. And those same mistakes continue to be made today! The government lawyers failed to draft the bailout bills in such a manner that would eliminate those improper behaviors. Was that just an oversight, or was it intentional? In a practical sense it makes no difference, because the bottom line is the bottom line. Taxpayer money was used to support private corporations, and used without appropriate restrictions on the manner of in which it could be disbursed. The first thing AIG did with our money was pay those outrageous bonuses to its executives. (Granted, had those businesses gone under, there would have been tens of thousands of jobs lost, increasing the strain on an already stretched-thin unemployment compensation program.) However, the government now has "control" of the automotive industry, and most of Wall Street, both of which are areas in which government has no business. The government is unsuccessful in conducting its own restricted business, why should we believe they can run successful enterprises within a competitive free market system? Why should they even believe that?

2. Government involvement in individual health care issues. Nowhere in the Constitution is that a power specifically granted to the federal government. Therefore it is a "States Rights" issue. The government is not allowed to compete with private industry at any level, which is why all government contracts must be bid upon by private vendors.

3. Appointment of unelected, and generally unvetted, "czars" to positions of power equal to, and in some cases superior to, the powers of established Cabinet posts and Departmental Directors. Further, in many cases these "czar" positions amount to nothing more political payback for support during the election campaign, with a slant toward also "paying back" those who did not support his bid for election. Most Obama czars are very radical, foaming-at-the-mouth, left-wing thugs, whose primary interest is one of destroying the very foundations of our once-great nation. These appointees are working hard for Obama's agenda, devising ways to circumvent the First Amendment (Freedom of religion, speech and expression), Second (Right to keep and bear arms), Fourth (Search and seizure), Tenth (Powers of the states and people) and Thirteenth Amendments (Abolition of slavery) to the Constitution. The measure of a man's true character can be taken from the people with whom he surrounds himself.

4. Attempting to silence those who would disagree with new Presidential plans and policies, by re-instituting the 1949 "Fairness Doctrine", which was essentially deemed worthless by the FCC in August of 1987, who repealed it by a 4-0 vote, and labeled it "unconstitutional", saying:

"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

This ruling was upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1989.

5. Coming soon to Obamaland - the Internet Czar! A position designed to restrict the free flow of information between citizens of the United States over the internet. Purportedly, this poition is designed to “enhance remedies for violations of intellectual property laws and for other purposes”. It’s the “other purposes” that should have people concerned.

6. There is a rumor circulating - one that is well within the realm of believability - that Obama plans to sign away the sovereignty of this great nation in Copenhagen at the impending United Nations Climate Treaty (December 7-18, 2009). If such an act is not treason, then the ensuing revolt across the country will not be considered a revolution. The only freedoms that any official can sign away are his own! If Obama opts for personal slavery under the U.N. and a "World Government", replacing U.S. law and the Constitution with the laws of the International Court then let him sign away his freedoms. (It is also being said that once the document is signed it cannot be revoked.) No man can make such a decision for another person, nor can a President make such a decision for a nation of men... without cost. The cost of MY freedom will be dear to all concerned!

These changes are, for the most part, being made without challenge from the American citizens. Have we - the "silent majority" - been silent so long as to have lost our voice entirely? Or, have we been so ignorantly complacent that we no longer care? The government is NOT YOUR DADDY! You cannot depend on the government to meet all, most, or even any of your needs in the long term. If you don't believe me, ask any Native American what trusting your government does for you.

For those of you who may be the least bit concerned about such a thing as signing us over to a foreign entity - as if we were personal property - actually happening I would suggest you contact all your elected state officials demanding that they refuse to accept such a proposal. Thirty-three states have already re-declared their "States Rights". Could secession from the union be far behind?