The founders were rebelling against a totally different kind of tyranny.

Not much into history, are you? They were rebelling against PRECISELY the sort of thing our current government has slowly been increasing at for decades. Consider Jefferson’s source for the phrase “long history of usurpations”, and you’ll find quite a neatly packaged parallel to much that happens today, not the least of which is the erosion of national sovereignty.

- Our courts are bending to international precedent, a ridiculous concept given the vast difference between the true liberties of our society compared to that of any other nation.

- Worse than taxation without representation, we now have representation without taxation. Because of the progressive tax structure, because of welfare, because of the bleeding hearts of the socialists, those who contribute the most to this nation’s economy reap the fewest benefits, and those who do nothing are given almost anything they beg for. And it is those votes the politicians pander to the most.

- Our borders are threatened, and less than a handful of our “representatives” have anything to say about it. They’d rather accuse those who try to help of being vigilantes.

- The 1st, 2nd, and 14th amendments are routinely misapplied by the government, in a way that is absolutely tyrannical to the people.

You seem to think a revolution against the longest running Democratic society in history and arguably the most successful is in order.

The Signers seemed to think that a revolution against the longest running peaceful society in history, and arguably the most successful, was in order. I drew a completely valid parallel. You don’t like it? Well….

If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

—Samuel Adams

Take a deeeep breath Freelancer. This is a democracy.

This is a representative republic. If you are going to instruct me, get a clue. There is not one document responsible for the creation or structure of this nation that employs the term democracy.

For most of the rest of your comments, AZ_Redneck handled it fine at January 4, 3:49 PM

Overthrowing the government is a crime – talk of taking up arms, well placed lead,…

My reference to “gun control” wasn’t about overthrowing the government. It was in reference to people who advocate killing christians, and “enforced secularization”, and it was mostly tongue-in-cheek. If a person who identifies himself as a pacifist wants to kill me, he’ll have quite the fight on his hands. Capische?

Extremism is never popular no matter which party is advocating it.

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” – Barry Goldwater

This was written before our constitution, bill of rights or any other framework for our government was written. Quoting it is disingenuous in trying to make your point that revolution today is in order.

Not disingenuous at all. It provides the template for how to make a civilized case that your present national condition constitutes unacceptable tyranny. And so I will quote again…

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Jefferson et al are telling us that it’s our duty, presuming, of course, that the case is clearly made that absolute despotism is the continuing direction the current government is pursuing. That is why I concluded that post by saying I was unequal to that task. That should also answer your later comment:

which of you will take the role of judge,jury and executioner? Or maybe one of you has already sewed your general stars on your epaulets in anticipation of the revolution.

And you accuse me of flawed rhetoric, when almost every word in my post was a quote from the Declaration of Independence.

Here you have the majority being “proud” but of what? Blacks are proud to have withstood the oppression of Whites, should Whites be proud for visiting that oppression upon them? I think not.

Whites have done wonderful things for our world, oppression aside!

Soothsayer,

You seem to want to negate the concept of white pride because some whites were oppressors. That would be like negating the concept of black pride because some blacks have had this or that negative trait. It would be a sign of anti-black conditioning if someone said “Blacks have done many wonderful things, crime aside!”.

During the Civil War there were white Americans, many who had never even seen a black person, who signed up to sacrifice their lives fighting other white people to free black people from bondage. I don’t think you’ll find anything that compares to that racial selflessness and anti-oppression action in the entirety of world history. You label those men and their ancestors “oppressors”.

As disgusting as that is, I’m not going to heap scorn on you because you are merely a victim of your anti-white conditioning and victimhood conditioning.

I can’t prove that “millions of illegals” voted. I also don’t have the resources to investigate on my own. Without “proof”, I would bet any amount a significant number of votes in heavily democratic areas are fraudulent. Just my best eductaed guess based on the past behavior of democrats.

For instance, why are democrats against voter ID laws? Don’t they want elections to be as legal and fair as possible? Why do they intimidate Republican voters, such as slashing the tires of the vehicles slated to give voters rides to the voting station? Do Republicans do this? Do Republicans attack and burn DNC local offices like democrats do to RNC ones? Why can’t you answer Perchants question?

Cindy Sheehan or Darwin….. not sure I can tell the difference now.

When in doubt, personally attack your opponent. Typical. What’s really sad is that it’s you that has the most in common with Sheehan.

Bradky on January 5, 2007 at 8:43 AM

No you didn’t. What I find so fascinating is that when a Democrat type hopes to have some credibility on a conservative discussion board he can’t use the official pat answer so widely disseminated by the official Democrat mouthpieces.

he didn’t want them to find them

Now that is an answer.

Not sure what your second question has to do with the first – did you miss that question on your high school history test?

But just to be nice the answer was (A) he didn’t want them to find them.

They can object as much as they like but the observers still have shown up. There is no more PROOF of fraud that you are alleging than there was of fraud on the republican side.

Bradky on January 5, 2007 at 7:36 AM

I’ll try to ask one more time:
Why do the Democrats so vehemently object to poll watchers at their most liberal precincts?

After you answer that one, try this one:
Why did Saddam object to weapons inspectors snooping around for forbidden weapons?

So says Bradky as Rome burns.

darwin on January 5, 2007 at 8:14 AM

Still looking for that proof of millions of illegal votes you can’t seem to trot out. It is always kind of cute when the conspiracy theorists get their panties in a wad because someone asks for proof. “9-11 was a conspiracy, how dare you question my patriotism!” “The 06 election was won through fraud by millions of illegal voters, how dare you ask for proof”

Cindy Sheehan or Darwin….. not sure I can tell the difference now.

So says Bradky as Rome burns.

Why do Democrats always object to Republican poll watchers at liberal precincts and Republicans never object to Democrat poll watchers at conservative precincts?

Does forbidding the observation of the fraud and then demanding proof of it seem sensible to you?

Perchant on January 5, 2007 at 1:52 AM

They can object as much as they like but the observers still have shown up. There is no more PROOF of fraud that you are alleging than there was of fraud on the republican side.

The problem with making a sweeping accusation like this is that it turns off many more people than it attracts because it is only rhetoric. The election in 06 was normal by historical standards for a second term president – they lose seats in both houses and sometimes majority control of both. It happens – deal with it maturely, not with some conspiracy leaning accusations for which you have no proof. Keep up this type of shrill rhetoric and you will be sure to turn off more moderate voters in the 08 election.

Or is that the strategy so that those calling for “revolution” can justify their positions? “We keep losing voters therefore we must revolt because no one agrees with us”

It makes no more sense than far left calls for restrictive policies “meant to protect rights of the people for their own good, even if they don’t realize they need the protection”.

Why do Democrats always object to Republican poll watchers at liberal precincts and Republicans never object to Democrat poll watchers at conservative precincts?

Does forbidding the observation of the fraud and then demanding proof of it seem sensible to you?

No more than you can prove millions of illegal votes influenced this past election.

The democrats won … that’s proof enough.

– Darwin

By that logic we must accept that the movie Fahrenheit 911 is accurate and truthful — just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

It is interesting that you use the age old tactic of attacking one’s opponent by trying to discredit them

– Scotty

Attack? I’m not the one adding “spewing” to quotes but since you mention it, it is pretty easy to discredit a leap in logic that requires one to agree with the assertion that the Declaration of Independence was written to apply to the government subsequently created. Unless you have channeled the founders through a medium there is no basis in fact for your statement. Apple meet orange, orange meet apple…

Bradky spewed once again:
You might want to take a gander at section 2385 of the US code about that one hoss

It would be nice if we enforced that law but it would require throwing the DNC and RNC into jail. They have advocated the overthrow of our Republic for the last 40 years. They have passed so many laws incrementally that are in direct violation of our constitution that most have lost track. As others have pointed out, establishing the Department of Education required an Amendment but that little fact did not get in their way nor did it keep them from establishing so many other federal agencies that required an Amendment to the founding documents because the people would not have supported it.

Az Redneck,. Scotty and Freelancer which of you will take the role of judge,jury and executioner? Or maybe one of you has already sewed your general stars on your epaulets in anticipation of the revolution.
Overthrowing the government is a crime – talk of taking up arms, well placed lead, and the like smack of that type of talk. The founders created a system to allow for change with out revolution.

It is interesting that you use the age old tactic of attacking one’s opponent by trying to discredit them. In the words of Joseph Corsi;” In the days of Lenin, communist agitators took the ad hominem attack to a new level, perfecting techniques to discredit their opponents with the intent to discourage the public from listening to arguments that were serious and potentially fatal criticisms of communism.”

When did I ever say anything about a violent over throw of the USA?

I was giving you a much needed history lesson since you think we live in a Democracy and merely pointed out that we do live with Tyranny today just like the patriots that founded our country. Yet you made the above statement out of whole cloth in an attempt to marginalize your opponents.

If you like the fact that our elected leaders rule with impunity and could care less about our sovereignty, then fine. Why not come out and say it without trying to smear your fellow forum members.

The democrats won … that’s proof enough.

Disingenuous yes politically correct, no.

I have no idea why you insist on labeling me disingenuous. Do you know what it means? The last thing I am is that.

You might want to take a gander at section 2385 of the US code about that one hoss.

No … why don’t you give me a synopsis, them explain your implications.

Bradky – I would like to recommend a book for you “Watership Down” (ISBN 0380002930). It is probably the most telling critique of modernity available. Also, just a darn good story.

Not only that, but Adams created one of the coolest phrases ever – “going tharn.”

In an anti-white society, pro-white means anti-”anti white”. Just as a black person in an anti-black society should damn well be pro-black.

The term “white pride” does set off an alarm but taken literally, it is a good thing. It is the natural condition for whites to have pride in their culture but once conditioned to be anti-”white pride” they will become pro-”white shame”. It’s behavior control through word appropriation.

Moonbats is reserved for the extreme left, we need a term for the extreme right for easier reference.

Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 7:34 PM

hmmm…. i dunno …

Patriot? Conservative? Good Citizen?

——

Bradky – I would like to recommend a book for you “Watership Down” (ISBN 0380002930). It is probably the most telling critique of modernity available. Also, just a darn good story.

While reading the story keep the following thoughts in mind:

- The gun control movement
- Individual safety at the expense of everyone elses liberty
- Welfare at the expense of others
- Abdication of responsibility toward self government

In the Watership Down story, the position you and many others hold reminds me of the warren of rabbits that made a bargain with death. They turned their backs on the burdens of freedom for a little security provided by the farmer that cultivated them for his own use.

There are many like myself, Soothsayer, Freelancer, darwin, and others that recognize the progressive cultivation and are seeeking to retain their freedom and warn others.

You’ll notice that after each election the dems lose, they cry fraud, yet are never able to prove any of their claims.

darwin on January 4, 2007 at 8:00 PM

No more than you can prove millions of illegal votes influenced this past election.

Disingenuous and politically correct I’m not.

darwin on January 4, 2007 at 7:58 PM

– Darwin

Disingenuous yes politically correct, no.

…Not all action must be violent,….

– Darwin

You might want to take a gander at section 2385 of the US code about that one hoss.

Should a white person identify himself as “pro-white”? ANSWER: This however is a little different. Here you have the majority being “proud” but of what? Blacks are proud to have withstood the oppression of Whites, should Whites be proud for visiting that oppression upon them? I think not. In a vacuum I would say that there’s nothing wrong with being proud to be white, I’m proud of white people, just as well as I’m “proud” of blacks! Whites have done wonderful things for our world, oppression aside! But the subject DOESN’T ARISE in a VACUUM does it? The White Pride movement was started by those who RESENTED BLACK efforts to achieve EQUALITY and therefore were trying to counter that, hardly a noble motive. Much the same as men are obviously stronger than women, Whites are the dominant race in our society, pride in such an obvious fact, is unseemly and of questionable motive..

I don’t agree with you very much but I have to say,that was well stated.

Should the United States should remain a white majority nation?ANSWER: YES. As an African American I have no problem with this country being majority white.The racial makeup of this country is as important to it as it’s language. I’m not threatened by a lot of White People. There are GAZILLIONS of decent beautiful White people whom I got nothing but love for, my friend.

Should any white majority nation remain a white majority nation? If so, which ones? Should Ethiopia remain a black majority nation? Should Guatemala remain a latino majority nation? Should Japan remain an oriental majority nation? ANSWER: Basically I don’t think that ANY nation should have it’s principal demographic CHANGED by any outside source! This to me is no different than any other usurpation of sovereignity, however, if some Uber Liberal nation like say, Sweden, DECIDES amongst THEMSELVES to import a bunch of Arabs or something, that’s their beeswax.

Should a black person identify himself as “pro-black”? ANSWER: I would prefer that they be Pro-American! However, since black people were the downtrodden in this society, I understand where this mindset came from. I know as a kid growing up in Queens, I was still suffering the shock of discovering that we had been enslaved, when James Brown’s ” I’m Black and I’m Proud” came out. I found it curiously wonderful that anyone could be “proud” to be, what I was taught to be ashamed of..It started a journey of sorts for me, but TODAY, I would say that this was UNNECESSARY to be “PRO-BLACK” since those that are blatantly “Anti-Black” have largely been marginalized by our society. Thank God for that!

Should a white person identify himself as “pro-white”? ANSWER: This however is a little different. Here you have the majority being “proud” but of what? Blacks are proud to have withstood the oppression of Whites, should Whites be proud for visiting that oppression upon them? I think not. In a vacuum I would say that there’s nothing wrong with being proud to be white, I’m proud of white people, just as well as I’m “proud” of blacks! Whites have done wonderful things for our world, oppression aside! But the subject DOESN’T ARISE in a VACUUM does it? The White Pride movement was started by those who RESENTED BLACK efforts to achieve EQUALITY and therefore were trying to counter that, hardly a noble motive. Much the same as men are obviously stronger than women, Whites are the dominant race in our society, pride in such an obvious fact, is unseemly and of questionable motive..

Did some of those questions make you feel more uneasy than the other questions? Answer: No they were just fine.

Perchant on January 4, 2007 at 3:09 AM

Nice test Perch!

Certainly I have the Illegal Alien Invasion at the top of my list of political causes. (I wouldn’t have spent dozens of hours designing these: http://www.az123.com/pseudobills.htm and lots of money and effort mailing them to every politician and PAC etc. and financing the bandwidth for anyone and everyone else to use them, if I were soft on illegal aliens.)LegendHasIT.

NO I WASN’T ATTACKING YOU Legend. Someone with a site as BRILLIANT as the one you linked me to, couldn’t possibly be the object of my ire. I was speaking to those who were dissing Anne Coulter as if she’s “too extreme” and to those who were acting as if this guy was just some random nutbag. He may be, but the subject needed a little airing out IMO, rather than a preemptory dismissal. The question is will you rise up the day they announce the North American Union? Or the Amero? I mean, how can you take the influx of at a MINIMUM, 70 MILLION people as anything other than an attack on America? What about the Congressmen who suggested not only legalizing the 12 million that are here but allowing them to bring 5or 6 relatives! Are they not traitors? Aren’t they liberal traitorous bastards that are only doing this to get votes? You will notice that in my post I didn’t join this guys call for violence AT THIS TIME, but I’ll tell you like they say in Washington D.C, my friend, NOTHING IS OFF THE TABLE!

Sounds like something the democrats were saying up to and during the last election. Of course since they won, they dropped it.

You’ll notice that after each election the dems lose, they cry fraud, yet are never able to prove any of their claims.

It’s from the Declaration of Independence, and it’s words are as applicable today as when they were written. When the men and women chosen to represent Americas citizens don’t, and when these same people fail to heed calls to secure our homeland and secure what has made us who we are, then action must be taken. Not all action must be violent, the message can be sent by other means. One thing is sure, the people simply are being ignored.

Disingenuous and politically correct I’m not.

Bradky on January 4, 2007 at 7:37 PM

That’s what you do when you’re engaged in this sort of fraud, it’s basic misdirection.

Do you know why Democrats always object to Republican poll watchers in liberal areas and Republicans never object to Democrat poll watchers in conservative areas? Take a guess.

… Democrats’ willingness to engage in as much voter fraud as necessary without any fear of reprisals

– Perchant

Sounds kind of like what Democrats were saying about a “stolen election” a few years ago…

…evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism…

This was written before our constitution, bill of rights or any other framework for our government was written. Quoting it is disingenuous in trying to make your point that revolution today is in order.

The people voted and the representatives have taken their place. You seem to be saying that the minority of voters who share your extreme views on this know what is best for the uninformed majority – sounds kind of like well ….. judicial activism the far left is so enamored with, which you seem to disdain.

Moonbats is reserved for the extreme left, we need a term for the extreme right for easier reference.