"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state." ~ Thomas Jefferson
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present President of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He (Obama) has rejected the will of the people.
He is attempting the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic by attempting to form a Socialist Union with himself as Dictator.
He has offered aid and comfort to our enemies.
He has usurped the powers of our Constitutionally formed Congress, by installing policy makers (or "czars") who are unaccountable to the people and the duly elected Congress.
He has combined with others (Principally, certain equally despotic Democrat legislators) to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.
For altering fundamentally the form of our Governments.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to Barack Hussein Obama, and that all political connection between them and Barack Hussein Obama, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
We must do whatever we can to protect our freedom and liberty. We must first ask Obama, politely, to resign. If that doesn't work, we must initiate impeachment proceedings against him to have him removed.
If that doesn't work, we must be prepared to shed blood in defense of our Republic and our liberty.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
21 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"The history of the present President of the United States of America is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. "
ReplyDeleteYou use the word history in quite a wrong context here. The word history is not applicable at all to a period of less than a year.
"He (Obama) has rejected the will of the people."
I remember him being elected by a solid majority of the population in an election where healthcare reform was one of the central pillars of his campaign.
See this idea of being a repressed majority sorta falls apart when you have to prop up your points with actual facts instead of empty rhetoric.
"He is attempting the overthrow of our Constitutional Republic by attempting to form a Socialist Union with himself as Dictator."
Oh Really? Show me where he's disbanded Congress or denied the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Or maybe it was when he called in the military to disrupt the protests in Washington? None of these things have happened and that's why you just sound like a conspiracy idiot.
"He has offered aid and comfort to our enemies."
How nebulous and fatuous can you get? I notice you don't take the time to lay out what sort of aid or what sort of comfort to which enemies. Because the facts aren't there to bolster your claim!
"He has usurped the powers of our Constitutionally formed Congress, by installing policy makers (or "czars") who are unaccountable to the people and the duly elected Congress."
You know there is not even one position in the executive branch with the word czar in it's title. Bush had 36 so-called czars though. Was 37 one too many for democracy to sustain? Even though about a third of these managers are approved by Congress?
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent."
Details! Details! The hobgoblins of those of us who have to live in reality.
"For altering fundamentally the form of our Governments."
What policies has this administration initiated in the past 8-9 months that has unraveled the fabric of our nation?
I can enumerate the policies and programs that I saw the previous administration enact that I felt endangered the fundamental character of our nation:
1. The doctrine of preemptive war
2. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens
3. Presidential signing statements
4. Indefinite detainment
5. The security rules and procedures of the homeland security department
Do you think if I searched a little while I wouldn't be able to find a quote from around about 2002-2003 saying that people should support the president regardless?
I don't think your antipathy to Pres. Obama and his policies is race-based. I rather believe that Republicans are just poor losers.
In November 2008 the country chose both a democratic president and a democratic majority in congress. Instead of looking at those results and deciding to reevaluate your ideas and base assumptions conservatives have doubled down saying that your same discredited ideas are better than ever and anyone who doesn't agree are not only stupid but also unAmerican.
History is not applicable to a period of less than a year? That's ridiculous. No definition supports this. Technically, yesterday is history, and recorded history at that.
ReplyDeleteThat Obama was elected by a majority of voters is irrelevant-- perhaps now I understand why you insist events less than a year old can't be considered 'history'. A majority of voters TODAY do NOT support him or his desire to "fundamentally [transform] America." A poll taken 10 months ago means nothing in terms of CURRENT public sentiment.
...
Here's the key phrase: "He is attempting..." And this is demonstrated in his government takeover of banks, industry, his attempted takeover of healthcare, the internet, and radio airwaves. If you're unaware of any of this you aren't paying attention.
...
"Aid and Comfort"? Perhaps not in those exact terms, but Obama has pulled the rug out from under Checkoslovakia, Poland and Israel. He apologizes for America everywhere he ventures overseas.
Again, you're not paying attention. Either that or you're willfully ignorant of the facts.
...
All the president's czars? Perhaps you should be paying more attention:
Democrats Join GOP in Attacking Obama's Czars
Democrats join GOP czar wars
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional
All the president's czars
...
On taxes. Just by pushing the near 1 trillion stimulus on us, our taxes must go up; how else will the stimulus be paid for?
Cap & Trade is slated, should it pass, to impose 1700$ in additional taxes on every middle class family.
Should Obama's health reform scheme pass, everyone will be forced to buy into the system or pay a hefty fine... in the neighborhood of $1,500 for the poorest of us. It is a tax, whatever he says, however he chooses to parse it.
...
Presidential signing statements? do a little history. They've been going on since James Monroe (1817-1825). Bill Clinton issued many more signing statements than Bush. The controversy is about the kind of signing statements Bush has issued.
...
Sore losers? You mean like Democrats throughout the entirety of Bush's two terms? After all, according to your side of the aisle Bush stole BOTH elections.
As for that final "unAmerican" quip, that is pure ignorance. Democrats, including Pelosi, throughout Bush's two terms publicly stated that opposition to the President was both their constitutional right and quintessentially "patriotic"... very AMERICAN.
Now the shoe's on the other foot and you don't like it. Too bad, elections have consequences; you made your bed (put him in office), now lie in it.
In closing, I remember how much everyone on the Left claimed we needed to improve our image in the world. It's a shame Obama hasn't done much to improve that image among the LEADERS of the world. He is swiftly becoming a byword, a whispered joke.
There was a lot to be said about electing the most experienced person to the presidency. Unfortunately, the most experienced didn't win... Hillary would have done a far better job. She was far more politically savvy that Obama. Obama brought every community organizing skill he had to the campaign, but he's learned right quick how ineffective those techniques translate to the White House (not to mention just how corrupt that philosophy has turned out to be). You can't bully the American people for very long and expect to get away with it. His declining poll numbers are directly linked to his lack of experience.
Gut Check: Who will the sore losers be when Democrats lose seats next fall? Let's do away with the name-calling. It's both unproductive and puerile.
Here're some eye-opening figures on Obama's "Attempted" Heathcare takeover:
ReplyDeleteFrom DickMorris.com
ObamaCare: Losing Everyone
September 21, 2009
The elderly were the first group to turn against President Obama's health-care proposals, alienated by the plans to cut $500 billion cut from Medicare. The young and the uninsured may be the next to jump ship-- out of worry over about the huge premiums they'd have to pay.
Requiring everyone to buy insurance will impose a massive tax on all who now are uninsured. The Congressional Budget Office projects that it would force the middle-income uninsured to pay on average more than 15 percent of their income.
The poor will still have Medicaid. But for those earning more, the required premiums will be worse than any tax increase. For example, CBO estimates that when the program is fully implemented-- by 2016 --an individual earning $32,400 a year would have to pay $4,100 in premiums before getting any subsidy. With deductibles and co-payments, he'd have to shell out $5,600 a year, or 17.3 percent of his income. A family of four, making $80,000 a year, would have to pay about $10,500 in premiums alone-- with deductibles and co-payments, up to $15,000 or just under 20 percent of income.
And if they don't buy insurance, they'll face federal fines that begin to approach these same premium levels. They won't be able to buy what they truly need-- catastrophic-only coverage at a lower premium --that won't satisfy ObamaCare's "minimum insurance" mandate.
The young and uninsured will catch on: This bill is designed to force healthy people who don't have health insurance-- and may neither need nor want it --to buy it anyway, in order to raise the money to subsidize those who do need it.
Obama has pledged only to increase taxes on the rich. But his program essentially taxes the core of the middle class (those making $30,000 to $80,000). It will make them overpay in order to pick up the slack for others who need the extra coverage.
In other words, health-care "reform" is a health-care tax dressed up as a program to cover the uninsured.
No matter how Democrats get the money to cover those who need insurance, they offend supporters that they need to pass the bill:
1) If they get the money from more Medicare cuts, they alienate the elderly still further.
2) If they get it from raising the deficit, they lose moderates.
3) If they hike taxes to do it, they lose the "Blue Dog" Democrats who've gone on record as opposing such increases.
4) If they don't increase the subsidies, they lose the uninsured themselves.
The latest data from Scott Rasmussen's poll of those who lack health insurance indicates that they're starting to turn skeptical about the Obama plan. It's supposed to help them, yet they back it by only 58 percent to 35 percent-- and only 30 percent support it strongly.
More to the point, only 35 percent feel it will improve the quality of their health care-- and, by 41-26, they feel the cost of their care will go up, not down, under the plan.
Having the uninsured-- the stated object of Obama's compassion --turn against his reform would be the most lethal cut of all.
We must first ask Obama, politely, to resign. If that doesn't work, we must initiate impeachment proceedings against him to have him removed.
ReplyDeleteIf that doesn't work, we must be prepared to shed blood in defense of our Republic and our liberty.
I know we so-called liberals were called treasonous when we disagreed with a very questionable war. That label was wrongly applied, as mere disagreement is not treason.
However, calling for a violent revolution if the minority does not get their way, that might be actual treason.
You realize you just said, "If we, the minority of people in this great nation, don't get what we want (either resignation or impeachment), then we might take up arms against the majority in our nation..."?
You want to force YOUR will on we, the people?
You guys really are losing it over here. Fortunately, we can count on your rantings being just that: The impotent whining of a bunch of sore losers who wish they could force their will on the majority of American citizens.
There's a word for that: Fascism. Actual fascism, not this make believe stuff you accuse President Obama of.
Come on, El, Marshall. I know you guys aren't always the most reasonable of folk, but are you really going to let this buddy of yours call for violent overthrow of a legally elected president?
ReplyDeleteIs that the way you all swing, too?
I do not advocate the violent overthrow of Washington (I prefer the ballot box which could be viewed as a medium by which the people periodically overthrow their governments. It's cleaner; less bloody)-- I was only responding to BenT.
ReplyDeleteAs for forcing MY will on "We the People," isn't that what Obama is trying to do with ObamaCare? Isn't that what the Senate would be doing by ramming it through via reconciliation? How many "violent overthrows" will result next election day because Democrats chose to thwart the obvious will of the people?
But no, Dan. I do not advocate any violence against our government. Not when the ballot box will most assuredly do it for me next fall.
It's good to hear from you, by the way.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about, Dan? I'm always reasonable.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind that this is a team blog. That doesn't mean that we're all joined at the hip. Mark's free to voice his thoughts and be as over-the-top and hyperbolic as he so chooses.
Note that bloody rebellion is listed as a last resort. Note also that bloody rebellion is always on the list in that position as it was since our founding. Is it necessary now? Don't think so. The mid-terms will stifle much of what Obumpkin wants to do and until then, the outcry of the people are making things tough enough. Then of course, the next general will find him an ex-president, so even insisting that he step down is unnecessary. People are actually paying attention now; something they should have done before Nov. '08, but better late than never.
A couple of other things that reasonable people understand:
"Whining bunch of losers" is what you guys were after claiming Bush "stole" both elections he legally won. What we're doing is a matter of righteous indignation at the actions of 52% of the voting public who willingly put this boob into office without knowing a damned thing about him. Unlike what Ben likes to tell himself, Barry Obrother was not elected on some mandate to bring about the change we are now seeing, since none but his opponents understood what that could possibly mean.
No. Instead, there were two reasons 52% of the voting public were that stupid, and the first was that Barry is half-black. Too many were so hyped for finally electing a black or woman president that it was all that was important. Not that he's a radical who cut his teeth on radical teachings, radical religion, radical relationships. Not that he had any ideas that anyone could actually retell to others, but only that he was a black dude.
The other point was that he wasn't Republican and/or Bush-like. Again, unlike what Ben likes to tell himself, Barry was a lesser of two evils for many of that 52%. Even right-wing voters were fed up with the failures of their elected reps with (R) next to their names and their very Dem-like behavior. Had Republicans acted like Republicans, Barry wouldn't have stood a chance.
And by the way, I don't recall that those who objected to the war were called treasonous. But those, like the NY Times were indeed treasonous in their publishing of surveilance techniques. Those who objected to the war were called other things, and some of them acted in a manner that could be called seditious.
ReplyDeleteCalling for the overthrow of our gov't isn't treason either. One must consider the reason and intent behind it. If it's merely to crush and extinguish our way of life, or to place us under the rule of another country or a despot, that would be treason. If it's to restore what has already been destroyed, or to save from destruction our way of life, that would NOT be treason.
Calling for the overthrow of our gov't isn't treason either. One must consider the reason and intent behind it. If it's merely to crush and extinguish our way of life, or to place us under the rule of another country or a despot, that would be treason.
ReplyDeleteThe Evil One called for...
1. Obama to resign (never mind that he has popular support and he was overwhelming elected president of the US)
2. Be impeached (for what? He has committed no high crimes or treason - is the Perverse One calling for an ILLEGAL impeachment?)
3. Failing these illegal and immoral actions, your comrade said "we must be ready for bloody revolution."
That sure SOUNDS like he is saying if we, the minority, don't get our way, it's time to consider deadly and violent overthrow of a legally elected president. It is your co-writer who is calling for the crushing and extinguishing of our way of life.
Be a man. Stand against such grossly immoral comments.
Be an American.
Treason: The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies...
ReplyDeleteTreason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.
Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it...
On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally protected speech...
Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may not hold federal office at any time thereafter.
Legal Definition
He appears to be advocating treasonous acts, although I'm not clear if the call to commit treasonous acts is, itself, treason.
Dan, you surely have a strange way of interpreting plain English.
ReplyDeleteI said we must be prepared to shed blood in the defense of Liberty.
Prepared. That means be ready, just in case. Defense. That means to fight back against tyranny.
Oh, and by the way. Be prepared to shed blood can mean our blood as well as theirs. But you don't have to worry. If Obama's excesses result in a bloody revolution, you'll be hiding under your bed singing Kum ba Yah.
I can't help it if you are so blind to Obama's unprecedented grab for power that you can't see he is usurping his Constitutional authority. That's your problem.
Thank you for the definition of treason, Dan. You have described Obama's actions perfectly.
ReplyDeleteDan, Only a Liberal such as yourself would fail to recognize the Declaration of Independence when he sees it. All I did was copy and paste the Declaration of Independence and change a few words here and there to make it appropriate to our modern times.
ReplyDeleteSo, in other words, it is your contention that the authors and signers of our Declaration were traitors and should be executed for their crimes. Never mind that you have been enjoying the benefits of a Free nation since you were born. Well, perhaps that's why you are so willing to let Obama take us down the road to Marxism. You haven't known any other governmental system, and you think a Constitutional Republic can be improved upon by sacrificing your unalienable rights to the Obama's of the world.
Why don't you just eliminate the waiting period until Obama turns the USA into the USSA? Move to Cuba or North Korea. I'm sure they would embrace your "peace at all costs" philosophy.
Eric, You are probably right about not having to worry about the last resort. However, remember, he has only been in office for about 6 months or so, and look what he has managed to do so far. Can you imagine what he will be able to do in three more years, if no one stops him or slows him down?
ReplyDeleteDon't be so quick to dismiss the possibility of drastic action. It only takes one vote by Congress to eliminate presidential term limits, and then, he has all the time God gives him to turn this nation into a Marxist regime.
I will take up arms against anyone if they try to do that. If it comes to that.
ELAshley:
ReplyDelete"That Obama was elected by a majority of voters is irrelevant.... A majority of voters TODAY do NOT support him or his desire to "fundamentally [transform] America." A poll taken 10 months ago means nothing in terms of CURRENT public sentiment."
Regardless of the wild fantasy, EL strictly positions himself against our Constitution and all representative Democracy and for a coup d'état and anarchy.
If you can't check yourself when writing such things, EL, you have no business deliberating on American politics, or any democratic politics at all.
[That Mark supports anarchic actions is hardly surprising or a serious problem. He is a child playing with the waxen toys of his infantile imagination.]
"Regardless of the wild fantasy, EL strictly positions himself against our Constitution and all representative Democracy and for a coup d'état and anarchy."
ReplyDeleteIn what way, exactly, has EL done this, troll? Can you never support any of your goofy statements with something substantial? You don't have any credibility as a knowlegable person, so why would anyone see your statements as authoritative? Try actually presenting an argument for a change. As it is, you're just a delusional bum on the street corner spewing invective.
"If you can't check yourself when writing such things, EL, you have no business deliberating on American politics, or any democratic politics at all."
When you can present real arguments on any topic of any discussion in which you've inserted yourself, perhaps then you'll have some room, to say nothing of right, to determine who has any business deliberating on anything. As it stands, EL's capacity for such deliberation is at a level you couldn't match on your best day, despite the hilarity such an attempt by you would generate for me.
Regarding your comment towards Mark, he is only echoing the sentiments of the author of the declaration he parodied. Y'know, those damned anarchists who founded our country. Try reading a history book sometime.
Anarchists don't found nations, they destroy them or ignore them.
ReplyDeleteReading history is a good thing...
What then is Barack Obama, if not an anarchist? His policies will destroy this nation.
ReplyDeleteummm, a Democrat?
ReplyDeleteOne who believes in gov't, not unlike the GOP?
Besides, I thought you all thought he was a Marxist - Marxists ain't anarchists, eh?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteNotice the entire dialogue. My sarcasm should have been apparent. Of course anarchists didn't found this nation. But they did revolt against the gov't of the time, and suggested that it is the right and duty of the people to do so whenever a gov't gets out of hand. Thus, what Mark had in mind is not anarchy, but a call to follow in the footsteps of the founders. I don't agree it's required at this time, but I won't pretend he's insisting it is, either.