Home › Blogs › markamerica's blog ›

Civil Disobedience to Statism: The Modern form of Revolt

Submitted by markamerica on Thu, 12/24/2009 - 20:59
in

gone

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

Comments

In a democracy,the only acceptable "revolt" is winning elections

Submitted by mlindroo on Fri, 12/25/2009 - 04:00.

Like it or not, Obama, Reid and Pelosi won fair and square in 2008. And as a result, they have enough elected lawmakers in Congress to reform government.

If you don't like that, you just have to win the next election. What won't help, is proposing juvenile and inane stuff such as calling democratically elected political opponents "enemies" or automatically assuming "any person charged with an offense against the government" is "not guilty". 

 

MARCU$

Hey, uh, you know...

Submitted by markamerica on Fri, 12/25/2009 - 12:19.

They were not elected to discard the constitution, and yet with their various programs, legislation, and all the rest, are doing just that. This makes them enemies... Not the fact that I don't happen to like their legislative agenda.

They are intentionally undermining our constitution. They are intentionally stripping liberty from Americans in the name of their statist agenda. That is an enemy. If you support it, well, you know the saying: If the shoe fits... Wear it.

And yes, I am in favor of jury nullification for any citizen who acts to take on these thugs. That's right, I called them thugs. And coercion is the root of the means by which they intend to inflict their agenda. So yes, "thugs."

Don't like it? Stop being a thug.

Mark

The "thugs", "enemies" mentality is precisely the problem,Mark

Submitted by mlindroo on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 05:32.

They were not elected to discard the constitution

Your statement is definitely hyperbole. Why? Because, in this hyper-partisan era, if Obama's reforms actually violated the law of the land, why has not Michael Steele, Newt Gingrich & co. called him out?? Yet *NO* mainstream conservative legal scholar or politician is willing to say the Democrats are wilfully violating the constitution and therefore calling for civil disobedience or even a peaceful coup d'etat. E.g. the argument that universal health care would be "unconstitutional" has been laughed out of court numerous times already. In fairness, it must be pointed out that the Dems to some extent now are paying the price for eight years of "Bush derangement syndrome". But it is still highly unfortunate that a large faction of the GOP cannot simply accept political differences, but instead has to talk about "thugs undermining the constitution" (your term), "DeMarxist", "fascists", "communists" (Skippy MacLure). These are not merely political opponents, we are told, but enemies hell-bent on destroying America as we know it. If you REALLY believe the current situation is this bad, surely you would not be too disappointed if some John Hinckley or Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated the President tomorrow? After all, isn't the life of an "Enemy" a small price to pay for the safety and survival of your country? MARCU$

Thugs...

Submitted by markamerica on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 10:44.

They violate the constitution on several grounds. Please provide for me that authority Congress is given in Article I to compel me to buy anything. Show it to me. No? Can't find it?

Please don't bother with the Commerce Clause, which does not in any way apply. That's a tired argument, and it will not stick.

The fact that [most] Republicans in Congress are unwilling to state this openly merely confirms their cowardice.

As for your last point, well, I think you're playing the typical leftist game. You're accusing me of yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre where I haven't so much as whispered a peep.

Enemies? Yes, indeed, you and those like you are enemies. You and those like you commit a treason against this country in your every advocacy. I continue to hope that you will at some point see the light.

RE: Thugs...

Submitted by mlindroo on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 13:05.

> They violate the constitution on several grounds.

>  Please provide for me that authority

> Congress is given in Article I to compel me to buy anything.

Answer: The federal government already requires every American to purchase health insurance. That's what Medicare does. So why is it suddenly "unconstitutional" if you have to buy health ensurance before the age 65 in addition to the government-run plan you are compelled to buy to cover you after 65?

---

Since 1937 he courts have on numerous occasions stated that the general welfare clause of the Constitution empowers Congress to create social welfare plans based on compulsory contribution. So what's your problem?

 

> The fact that [most] Republicans in Congress are unwilling to state this openly

> merely confirms their cowardice.

 

Bullsh*t. This particular "argument" was settled already in the early 1800s. Even Roberts, Scalia or Alito would laugh at you if you tried to revive this particular line of attack.

 

> Enemies? Yes, indeed, you and those like you are enemies.  

 

GOP senators such as Ensign or DeMint are not "enemies" in my book...they are merely clueless morons.

 

MARCU$

Useless again...

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 16:48.

Nice try, weed. The problem is that your medicare payments are a TAX. You are not being compelled to buy anything. You don't get a receipt, and no services are owed. Nothing.

That's a far different matter from trying to compel me to buy something, and if I fail to do so, imposing a punishment and fine and perhaps jail time on me.

As an aside, the FDR administration was full of criminal conspiracies against our constitution. FDR packed the court with justices who were ribald haters of this country.

So? What's your point? That the criminality in government has been going on for nearly a century? Does that excuse it?

I'm sorry, but there is no statute of limitations on treason.

Mark

Can you document ANYTHING you say?

Submitted by Crow on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 18:48.

RANTING makes the NEXT RIGHT not only unlikely, but impossible.

Plenty...

Submitted by markamerica on Mon, 12/28/2009 - 03:11.

But you would ignore it anyway.

Here's an excellent read: "The Roosevelt Myth" by John T. Flynn.

Full of excellent information, well-sourced, and more contemporaneous(more or less) with the events of the FDR era. Start there.

Get back to me when you've finished.

Mark

is this nonsense a republican value?

Submitted by bob on Fri, 12/25/2009 - 15:10.

To the owners of the next right:

On Christmas, the birthday of our lord and savior, he who believed in turning the other cheek, helping the poor and the weak and loving your neighbor as yourself, you have your friends and supportors posting messages saying essentially that liberals should have their kneecaps broken.  I thought that you guys were Christians and America was a Christian nation. Is this type of belief a Christian value?  Would it be acceptable to go to church and hear your pastor saying that you should beat up someone you don't like?  Do you, the owners of this web site,  support these calls for violence against others?  Is this the Christian values that you, and the Republicans supposedly stand for?  Or is all that Christian lipservice just bullsht to fool stupid people to vote for them? 

If you do stand against violence against others, if you do believe that America is a Christian nation and should follow Christian ideals, let's see some responses from you, the owners and editors of this site.  You don't need to censor these morons, just tell them that these views are not welcome and are anti-Christian.  Let's see where you stand. Do you believe in American values or not?  Tell these jokers that they can post on KKK sites, skin head milita sites and other haters of American values. I think that there are probably some good Al-Kaida sites as well that would eat this stuff up.  You know the ones that expouse violence against Americans and its leadership.

I doubt you will.  Seems like this site, it's conservative followers and its owners is as bankrupt for ideas as well as ideals as the rest of the conservative movement and its leadership has gone AWOL as well.

Merry Christmas!

 

What calls for violence, Bob?

Submitted by markamerica on Fri, 12/25/2009 - 15:30.

What calls for violence, Bob? Who's called for violence? In the first post, I said that I do not support violence. Who said "knee-cap" other than you? Here's a thought: Your pals in Congress have just passed legislation to be enforced at the point of a gun against Americans who had committed no crime except not wanting to participate in government healthcare.

Who's advocating violence, Bob?

If I refuse to pay, what will you have government do, Bob? Kiss me? Beg me? No, of course not. You will insist that they throw me in jail and fine me and otherwise by use of naked violence and its threat coerce me into compliance, and punishment for non-compliance.

Don't dare pretend you are against violence, Bob. You have nothing else to offer. It is the means and mode of your preferred program. Sorry pal, but don't come here spouting off about violence when it is you who offer to throttle me for the sake of your desires.

Thug.

Mark

A further thought, Bob

Submitted by markamerica on Fri, 12/25/2009 - 15:35.

If you didn't get what you wanted under your tree this morning, does your pastor advocate sending government agents over to your neighbors to collect it from them, to fulfill your desires? No? Why not, Bob? That's what your sick healthcare reform is, Bob. Take your fake moaning over alleged(but non-existant) threats of violence and be off with you.

Without violence and its threat, your agenda for America is impossible. You would see your fellow man killed to finance your healthcare. That makes you a thug.

Mark

Whatever we know what you are

Submitted by bob on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 11:04.

Dear MarkAlqaeda.

"And yes, I am in favor of jury nullification for any citizen who acts to take on these thugs."

What do you mean by that? Tickling? Wedgies?  A talking to?

Why would a jury nullification be necessary for any citizen who ACTS to take on?  What would they need to nullify? Why would the courts or police for that matter even be involved?

We're not stupid. We know exactly what you, Glenn Beck, and anyone who implies or says that the tree of liberty needs to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants are.

Obviously you're living in a fantasy land where everyone is out to get you  There are people who can help  But my comments really weren't for you.  It are for the supporters and owners of this site.  Advocating violence against Americans is not American.  I'm looking to see if Republicans and Conservatives have the courage and honor to say this as well. 

I doubt it.

 

A number of things...

Submitted by markamerica on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 13:20.

If I claim more exemptions than the number to which I am entitled, I am acting. If I lay off all my employees, I am acting. If I otherwise do things to deprive the government of money, I am acting. "Act". Do you get it yet?

Glenn Beck? Who the hell is this guy? I think that's like the fourth time since I've been blogging here that some lefty tries to attach me to this person in some bizarre fashion.

As for the "tree of liberty" remark, I think that was Thomas Jefferson. Wasn't he the founder of the Democrat Party? I realize that was before purebred commies took over the Democrat party, you know, people like you.

Again, I laid out three specific, non-violent methods by which to resist. Meanwhile, your argument seems to consist of "withholding money from government coffers constitutes a threat of violence," but getting government agents to behave as looters-by-proxy does not.

By the way, every Presidential assassin or would-be assassin in the last 100 years has been a leftist, commie nut-job. Heck, even this nut-ball woman who threatened Michelle Obama was apparently motivated by love for (or sick obsession with)Obama himself. I'm sure she's another pinko, too. No, the only person here discussing violence, or threatening it, is you, pal.

Try again.

Mark

John the Baptist spoke out against King Herold

Submitted by Wayne from Jere... on Sat, 12/26/2009 - 14:26.

Jesus said, "There is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist"

Sometimes "Have no fellowship with unfruitful works of darkness but rather reprove them"  is taken to mean we are simply to ignore them with a cold shoulder . I would suggest having no fellowship with cap and trade and Obamacare would be to reject them as evil and reprove them is to stand against them.

Watch carefully, markamerica.

Submitted by jesdynf on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 14:11.

You can take a pledge to find any person charged with an offense against the government "Not Guilty." All you have to say is that you find the evidence unconvincing, or insufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt. Of course, that all you should say, in any case. Do not advertise your position in advance, or reveal your motive. In short, keep your mouth shut and just do it.

Did you say nonviolent? Did you limit that in any way?

No. You didn't. Because thinking about people killing anonymous libruls is the only thing that can get you hard. Seriously, kids. Let's turn this one around.

You can take a pledge to find any person charged with an offense against markamerica or his family "Not Guilty." All you have to say is that you find the evidence unconvincing, or insufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt. Of course, that all you should say, in any case. Do not advertise your position in advance, or reveal your motive. In short, keep your mouth shut and just do it.

The word you're looking for is incitement, champ, and I don't give one fig for your worthless excuses why it's not. You're wrong, and you're not just wrong but you're willfully encouraging evil.

Really, well I guess you'll need a better microscope...

Submitted by markamerica on Sun, 12/27/2009 - 16:43.

"offenses against the government," as I specified, would not include crimes of violence, like assault and battery, murder, and so on, because those are crimes against citizens. "Offenses against the government" would include things like tax evasion and similar things.

If you cannot follow the distinction, I'd suggest you take a course in law. Or perhaps a course in English. Either way, I suggest you bugger off.

Mark

markamerica hearts Timothy McVeigh & defense contracting fraud.

Submitted by John Smith on Mon, 12/28/2009 - 10:15.

You can take a pledge to find any person charged with an offense against the government "Not Guilty."

Timothy McVeigh smiles up at your proposal from his place in hell. Specialists in defense contracting fraud also applaud.

You can close your business, either permanently or temporarily if you're so-inclined, to deprive the domestic enemies of material and monetary support.

Go Gault! And when you do, know what happens? Your liberal (i.e. sane) competitior across town expands his buisness to pick up the slack that you've created. Everybody wins.