Republican congressional candidate says violent overthrow of government is 'on the table'

Originally posted by Wrecked
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Your right, we are free to do what we want to! But show me where it says in the Constitution that the government has the right to infringe on my rights?
You asked what rights, or should I say, where are you being harmed am I right? You a gun owner? The 2nd amendment right has been under attack for 40 plus years! The true question is how does one define "harm"? For some, much like yourself, harm is only defined if it effects you personally, or emotionally. Forget everyone else~

Guns and ammo sales are through the roof.

Are you saying you are harmed because you can't go out and buy a tank? How about a nuke...do you want a nuke?

i believe its possible that someday in the future that may be the only option we have left. but not at this point. this guy just seriously hurt his campaign. i don't know why you'd say something like that.

reply to post by Aggie Man


Another note is the lack of interest by the People in exactly how the election process works.

How many people, and this is a question to this board, actually vote in their primary elections? Do you know what a closed primary is? What about an open primary? When does a gubernatorial election take place? What is a general election?

My bet is, without Google, many Americans would fail to recognize these terms and what they mean to them as a voter.

If one does not participate within their Primary Election, then the best candidates pushed forward will represent those that actually stepped foot out of the house and exercised their vote.

reply to post by Fromabove


well people could have made that arguement from the beginning of this country and yet we never have.

right now there are people that say obama and the left is detached from the populace

a few years ago people said bush and the right was

before then people said clinton was

before then people said reagan was

et al.

the processes are in place to throw off such government without the loss of life and bloodshed i say we adhere to them even tho they arent necessarily working.

those people who seek to pick up arms agianst any government current or past is the same as the tyrannical form of governments they are seeking to throw off.

true political power comes from the vote process and adherence to the values set forth in that constitution.

even tho they seem contradictory they arent the constitution is the supreme law of the land

and the declaration of independence are those two documents people believe in the most.

every single citizen in this country has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

that fundamental right that we all have and can not be taken away when a group of people see "revolution" as a viable option it isnt.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Absolutely! I find it both laughable and sad that come election day people say things like "I don't like either one of these clowns...how do they represent me...this isn't fair...etc, etc...". All the while, they were too involved in their own self-amusement to get involved in the entire election process.

I love this quote:
"In a Democracy, the people get the government they deserve"

If one want's something out of their government, then one had better put something into it.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Yet the founding fathers specifically set up the form of government to not be 'direct'. Specifically if we focus upon the Congress.

I perfectly understand that is NOT what was envisioned by the founding fathers.
I am ASKING for opinions on whether a DIRECT form of government, RATHER than a representative form of government, would meet the needs better, given the technology now exists (as it did not in 1776) to allow such a form of government.

Personally, I BELIEVE that the present form of representative government has FAILED its citizens. When 70% of the people disapprove of the 2010 Health Care Act, it is OBVIOUS that the representatives are NOT REPRESENTING the people, but rather are representing big interests like the healthcare companies, insurance companies and lobbyists who are loaded with money.
The AVERAGE citizen has no more say in WHO gets elected as he/she does in willing themselves to sprout wings and fly!
Primaries are closed to most people, unless they register with either the TweedleDee or TweedlDum(b) party, and in many states, there are no primaries. (Caucuses or closed nomination processes exist in many states).

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


The representative form of government didn't fail, it was the officials voted into office, then stayed for 30+ years that failed us.

reply to post by Wrecked

The representative form of government didn't fail, it was the officials voted into office, then stayed for 30+ years that failed us.

Does it matter? The point is that the "representative" form of government ALLOWED it. A direct vote would have thrown those people out 29 years ago. (Hint- direct vote to RECALL an official!)

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Which is what I was trying to logically conclude, that the present form of Government we see today in America is more National than it is Federal.

Madison explains it as such:

The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. In the former case [speaking of a National government], all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure.

That sounds awfully close to what we are experiencing today from our Government. All jurisdiction is being consolidated at the National level. States and the People are subjected to blanket policies that serve only the national legislature.

On the other hand, in regards to a Federal Government, which is the original intent pre-17th Amendment he states the following:

In the latter [Federal government], the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. In this relation, then, the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.

The main point in the above is showing how the powers of the Government still reside locally, amongst the people and the municipals they reside in. This disseminates and dilutes the powers of Government down to the lowest levels to ensure that the Federal Government holds no more power over the individual as does the individual over itself.

Even with today's technology, a direct democracy of over 300 million people is infeasible and dangerous. What happens when a bill is proposed in Congress to allow each citizen to receive a yearly stipend of $1000, just because?

In a representative form of government, there are checks and balances in place to ensure that the majority do not vote themselves monies from the treasury (of course, we are seeing this today, because of the convulsion of the original intent of how Congress was to be setup.)

To those who say Americans won't revolt because we are too pacifist or lack the guts of our founding fathers to overthrow a tyrannical government, need I point out that there is now an unprecedented gap between the level of advancement in intelligence gathering equipment and weapons that exists between what the government has and what the citizens could even dream of owning. I don't care how angry and fed up we the people get, first off any whiff of an idea to overthrow the fed government by violent means would be detected and acted upon before pappy could call the boys and grab the deer rifles. Even those of you lucky nutters with really big guns would be hard pressed to safely do much more with them than show them off at a gun show. Hutaree anyone? Granted they were kind of stupid but I'm sure the intelligence community monitors more subtle stuff than we will ever see publicized. Yes there was the dude who got pissed off and flew his plane into some unfortunate IRS employees but he only got that far acting alone and what good did that do to reform anything?

Now what's the biggest baddest weapon that an ordinary or even extraordinary citizen capable of acquiring or creating and using? Could a citizen armed with such a weapon really do anything to a well guarded government whose members have access to fortified bunkers and the best military technology in the world to protect them.

Armed violent revolution in America in this day and age? It would take a catalyst so compelling that every able bodied adult and teenager would take up arms in a united effort. The more I think about it the more contempt I have for that doofus for even suggesting such a thing in the context of something as self serving as his party's or his personal prospects in the upcoming elections.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

This disseminates and dilutes the powers of Government down to the lowest levels to ensure that the Federal Government holds no more power over the individual as does the individual over itself.

Yes, I follow that, but the factor that upsets that apple cart is the corrupt judiciary that answers to a restricted group of powerful elites, who appoint them, then have those appointees do their bidding in the form of rulings, which in many cases, bastardize any laws that have been created, or in worst cases, vacate those laws. It goes from the lowest court through appeals courts, right up to, and including the Supreme Court, which is nothing more than a tool of powerful, corrupt politicians, who have appointed, and approved them.

At EVERY level, from the lowest, most local, to the highest, corruption in rampant. The system is completely broken, and nothing short of a new system, one way or the other, will fix it. I believe it is BEYOND repair.

Blah Blah Blah I'm a republican Blah Blah Blah Obama is destroying the country Blah Blah Blah(Glen Beck starts to cry)Blah Blah Blah to much spending(Nincompoop von Dummy(Sarah Palin)You betcha Blah Blah Blah.. Blah Blah Blah The recession was over in 2009(Barry,Barrack or whatever his name is) Blah Blah Blah We have to pass the bill before we can see whats in it(Nancy"Crazy Eyes"Pelosi)Blah Blah Blah Lets offer citizenship to illeagls and make them join the Military(Harry"Prozac"Reid)


Ever notice how all politicians can show you whose the blame,BUT NEVER OFFER ANY REAL SOLUTIONS

So if this is what is to be then oh well........

reply to post by alchemist2012

Ever notice how all politicians can show you whose the blame,BUT NEVER OFFER ANY REAL SOLUTIONS

Actually, that is EXACTLY what I am asking members to provide. Let me know YOUR solution.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

At EVERY level, from the lowest, most local, to the highest, corruption in rampant. The system is completely broken, and nothing short of a new system, one way or the other, will fix it. I believe it is BEYOND repair.

1st, NOTHING is beyond repair. Only the lazy and or incompetent think that.

2nd, Just because someone doesn't like the way things are run, doesn't give them the right to start going out and killing their fellow Americans.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


My most sincere and honest answer"I don't know that's why i''m not a politician"Really

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Now your just being ignorant~

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Actually we allowed it by not enforcing what the Declaration of Independence states that it is our duty to abolish implemented government if it isnt working for the people. We are to start a new one. Which further supports the argument that representative government didnt fail but we as voters did.,

reply to post by alchemist2012


This is where the ruling class has been most effective. Sound bites, tit for tat, policy promises etc rule the day and the People.

Check this out:Gallup Poll: Threat of Government

Specifically look at the notable changes in the left/right model. In 2006, when Republicans still held Congress and the Presidency, Democrats felt that Government was a threat to their rights and freedoms.

Then, look at 2010, when both the Congress and the Presidency are held by Democrats. The exact opposite occurs.

It is this pendulum motion of which people are attaching political party names to what they perceive as a threat to their rights and freedoms that allows the people we see today and yesteryear occupying the Congress and the Executive. By getting the People to feel their rights and freedoms are threatened not by Government itself, but by a political party, they can continue to pull the shroud over your eyes so that they can continue whatever policies they wish in ultimate control over the People.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


My overall solution would be to return to a more Federalist form of government.

By doing so, we would have to repeal the 17th Amendment, specifically the following: "The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

In doing so, placing States back onto the Federal scene by instructing them to fill the seats of their two senators. Thus moving us away from a Nationalist government back to a Federalist form of government. Depleting and taking the wind out of the massive centralization of power that has been ongoing since 1913.

Think of it this way. A lobbying firm today only has to lobby 57 senators, 257 representatives, 1 president and 5 supreme court justices (although I believe that type of lobbying is nefarious) to impose legislation upon over 300 million persons.

If the power to elect senators was placed back into the States' hands, that lobbying firm would not only have to lobby the representatives listed above, but also the legislators within each and every state.

The other main reason for the repeal is the work around that Congress places into bureaucratic departments in regards to the 9th and 10th Amendments. Think of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. While the Federal Government cannot directly legislate the numerous States to adhere to a minimum drinking age, they utilize the Federal Highway Act and blackmail to impose this act upon the States. This sidesteps the 10th Amendment by strong arming the States to impose drinking age minimums via the threat that they will lose Federal highway monies.

At its inception, if the 17th Amendment did not modify the original formation of the Senate, the States could have retained their rights under the 10th Amendment to directly impose what its people felt to be safe and sound because the Senate would have been populated by those that represent the States.

Alas, there is much more too and I will have to think about it some more. Ill be back

reply to post by Wrecked

Which further supports the argument that representative government didnt fail but we as voters did.

Actually, it is the NON-VOTERS that had more of a say than the voters. When people opt-out of voting, they give the power to the minority. Of course, it all depends upon the legitimacy of the slate of candidates. In the old Soviet Union, voter turnout was always near 100%, but their choice was to vote for the Communist Party candidate or shovel snow. In many of the elections in the US, there is no real choice.
I believe that the reason that the MSM and career politicians are so upset at the "Tea Party" candidates, is that they, in large part, are not part of the crowd that plays the game. That creates a real threat to their domination, and thus, they have to resort to character assassination. Of course, if you play the game, then there is no worry of character assassination. For instance, although Chris Coons, Democratic candidate for US Senator from Delaware claimed that he was a "bearded Marxist" in college, and was given a pass by the MSM and the PTB, while Christine O'Donnell, who, as an immature high school student, admitted she dabbled in witch craft, and has been crucified by the press and the PTB (of BOTH parties), because she is not one of the "in-crowd".
Double standards are everywhere in the US.
Say one negative thing about Muslims, and you're fired, but Christians are open-season in the MSM. Look at the comments that John Stewart has made about Christians, and he is not censored. What do you think would happen if he singled Muslims or the Islamic religion out? I assure you that a fatwah would be issued for his execution.