How to Stop the Current Jihad

[Rooster Cogburn]

Basically, enforce the laws already on the books!

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or

 

[Bill of Rights]

Basically, enforce the laws already on the books!

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or
teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or
the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession
thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by
force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any
such government; or

As I read it, that would say that if any of us claim that the US Gov't is acting improperly (propriety) that we would be guilty of treason, sedition, or other subversive acts. How can this be reconciled when what we are saying is simply that we want our government to comply with the Constitution as written because they are not doing so?

To ask this in the form of parable, I would ask who is wrong; the tailor/swindler, the emporer, the people, or the small child who announced that the emperor was naked?

Blessings,
B

 

[schwaky18]

Basically, enforce the laws already on the books!

Isn't this what the forefathers did? How the hell could this be a crime in a country that was created by such means.

 

[CarmelHP]

As I read it, that would say that if any of us claim that the US Gov't is acting improperly (propriety) that we would be guilty of treason, sedition, or other subversive acts. How can this be reconciled when what we are saying is simply that we want our government to comply with the Constitution as written because they are not doing so?

Since it doesn't say anything about the propriety of the government, but the propriety of violently overthrowing the government, I think you're reading is somewhat bizarre.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Since it doesn't say anything about the propriety of the government, but the propriety of violently overthrowing the government, I think you're reading is somewhat bizarre.

Thanks for pointing that out. I misread "propriety of overthrowing" as "propriety or overthrowing".

Still, however, if our elected and appointed government officials are disregarding their oaths and using our founding documents as just so much toilet paper, and considering that our own Declaration of Independence specifically describes the implementation of new government when it seems fit to our people to do so, though not an action to be undertaken lightly, it would seem that the act of teaching what our Founders said in that document would be chargeable.

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

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of
overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government
...

The two seem contradictory to me. If that still seems "bizarre" to you, I must wonder as to your interpretation of our Founders' intentions both at the time of the Revolution and for their posterity.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

No more a bizarre contradiction than us paying taxes when its not a law. So with Bill's summation, I would justly assume that this law isn't being enforced because of said contradiction.

Today...everything is a contradiction and double standard. Well, except dying and paying taxes.

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[CarmelHP]

The two seem contradictory to me. If that still seems "bizarre" to you, I must wonder as to your interpretation of our Founders' intentions both at the time of the Revolution and for their posterity.

As I stated, your reading of the use of "propriety" was bizarre. If this was your save attempt, nice try. The Constitution specifically gives the President the power to suppress insurrection, it's not a right by any stretch and the Founders did not consider it such under under a representative republic.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill,

I'm trying to parse this out a little, and I agree they do seem to contradict one another. One distinction I can see is that in the Declaration (still gives me goosebumps every time I read that) it says, while we have the right to "alter or to abolish", it does not say necessarily "by force or violence" as is specified in Title 18.

Now obviously, violence "did" ensue during the Revolution, but the question I have is, did the Founders eschew violence (although they obviously expected it, but maybe hoped to avoid it), did they mean "by any/all means necessary", or did they leave it purposely vague for us to decide?

It gives me goosebumps as well. Not nearly so many, however, as does Mr. Henry's speech, which I quote in full below. The last line is the best known, but the whole thing should answer you as well as remind some folks just what was on the minds of our Founders. Pres. Jefferson notably expected that a revolution would take place every generation, that being approximately 20 years. We're about 211 years late, by that reckoning. I'll leave it to the reader to decide how long, or even if, such a thing is overdue.

Here is his speech. For the full effect, read it aloud, as you would imagine he spoke these words:

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

--Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.​

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

Sorry, Bill, but I've got to spread the love some more before I can rep that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I stated, your reading of the use of "propriety" was bizarre. If this was your save attempt, nice try. The Constitution specifically gives the President the power to suppress insurrection, it's not a right by any stretch and the Founders did not consider it such under under a representative republic.

I have nothing I need or needed to "save".

I misread one word which changed the meaning of the phrase on which I based my original question. I admitted that error, thanked you for pointing it out, and noted a further discrepancy.

If the Founders did not consider it a right, why did they say twice explicitly in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) that it IS our right, and then add that it is not only our right but our duty to do so?

Bizarre is an interesting choice of term to describe reading the words and interpreting them according to their definitions.

For the sake of discussion, however, I'll humor you: rather than point out the "bizarre" nature of my interpretation, tell us how YOU think these two quotes (DoI and 18 USC, both quoted uptopic) should be interpreted and reconciled.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Shadowbeach]

.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Sorry, Bill, but I've got to spread the love some more before I can rep that.

No apology needed, David. I'm not posting for rep. I certainly appreciate the recognition, but I'm posting what you see because it's what I think and (if I can say it without sounding too much like a liberal), it's what I feel.

I wasn't blessed enough to know our Founders personally so I have to take what I can of who and what they were from their writings and from their actions. They were living under rule of people who cared nothing for them except what they, the rulers, could fleece from them. They saw the colonies as a source of revenue, to be taxed and squeezed for everything they could get from them, but not worthy of representation nor defense. The Crown and Parliament saw only their own interests, and none other mattered to them. Our Founders took exception to this. They knew what was right and what was wrong and they stood up and did something about it. I find it ironic that many of the same patterns are repeating themselves now, up to and including the raising of taxes as well as the issue that touched off the cannons of revolution: gun control. (for those who don't know, British Gen. Gage was marching to confiscate the colonists' guns and ammo)

It is my sincere hope that the lessons of history are not lost upon those who have been elected. Considering who just recently measured for new curtains on Pennsylvania Avenue, however, and the policies which he embraces, I am not reassured.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Took care of that for you, David.

That you did. My thanks. Unnecessary, but much appreciated.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

No apology needed, David. I'm not posting for rep. I certainly appreciate the recognition, but I'm posting what you see because it's what I think and (if I can say it without sounding too much like a liberal), it's what I feel.

And that's a lot of why the rep is deserved.

 

[SavageEagle]

Sorry, Bill, but I've got to spread the love some more before I can rep that.

 

[CarmelHP]

I have nothing I need or needed to "save".

I misread one word which changed the meaning of the phrase on which I based my original question. I admitted that error, thanked you for pointing it out, and noted a further discrepancy.

Then your closing comment to me was merely ridiculous.

If the Founders did not consider it a right, why did they say twice explicitly in the Declaration of Independence (DoI) that it IS our right, and then add that it is not only our right but our duty to do so?

Did you even read the DoI? They said alter or abolish. They did not say that you had to go shoot the very people you had just elected. Did you read their reasons? All of them? No right to elected representation, no right to a jury in criminal trial, no habeus, soldiers quartered in private homes to keep people in line, loyalist mercenaries harassing suspected rebels, impressment of seamen, suborning the judiciary, etc. Are you really telling that the Founding Fathers in any of their writings said that you should overthrow elected governments just because you didn't like how they were running things? It is a complete misrepresentation of the DoI and if you don't understand that then you should not be spouting off about what honorable men advocated.

Bizarre is an interesting choice of term to describe reading the words and interpreting them according to their definitions.

A bizarre reading of the word "propriety" in relation to what it referred to, which was violent overthrow of the government, not the propriety of government, as I noted. Now you're moving beyond ridiculous to dishonest.

 

[SavageEagle]

Did you even read the DoI? They said alter or abolish. They did not say that you had to go shoot the very people you had just elected. ........... Are you really telling that the Founding Fathers in any of their writings said that you should overthrow elected governments just because you didn't like how they were running things?

I'm sorry for jumping into the middle of this nice discussion, but I would like to point out that illegally elected officials are not elected by the people. Voter fraud anyone?

Also, just because they are elected doesn't mean that they can't or won't turn to tyranny through legal processes. For instance, Martial Law can only exist where the courts can not institute the rule of law. So what happens when they ignore that and station troops at the local High School and in homes for months on end with no threat to be found? Or they suspend all rights afforded to us by our Creator, not just the right to bear arms, but to freedom of speech or the press? Nationwide? Do we sit and take it with a gun to our face while we wait for election year?

 

[CarmelHP]

I'm sorry for jumping into the middle of this nice discussion, but I would like to point out that illegally elected officials are not elected by the people. Voter fraud anyone?

Also, just because they are elected doesn't mean that they can't or won't turn to tyranny through legal processes. For instance, Martial Law can only exist where the courts can not institute the rule of law. So what happens when they ignore that and station troops at the local High School and in homes for months on end with no threat to be found? Or they suspend all rights afforded to us by our Creator, not just the right to bear arms, but to freedom of speech or the press? Nationwide? Do we sit and take it with a gun to our face while we wait for election year?

I hate the outcome of the recent elections as much as anyone, but it wasn't election fraud. My side got whipped. The Founders were the politicos in the areas where they lived. They did the business of government. Most people who are shouting about how bad government is have never even been a precinct committeeman, or run for office or tried to recruit a candidate, worked on a campaign or done anything else to change the system. Few have even met their Congressman. The people who worship at the altar of government, the Obama people, were out doing it every day. Why is it a surprise they won? Citizens who won't do these relatively easy and simple things are never going to be able to defend their rights by force, and the chest thumping is annoying. The founders petitioned, fought pamphleteer wars, and visited Parliament for years before the first shot was fired back.

Did the Founders pick up their muskets when the Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided actual penalties for criticizing (see, Philadelphia Aurora) the national government, were passed by Adams' Congressional friends? No. They waited for the next election and voted them out.

 

[SavageEagle]

I hate the outcome of the recent elections as much as anyone, but it wasn't election fraud. My side got whipped. The Founders were the politicos in the areas where they lived. They did the business of government. Most people who are shouting about how bad government is have never even been a precinct committeeman, or run for office or tried to recruit a candidate, worked on a campaign or done anything else to change the system. Few have even met their Congressman. The people who worship at the altar of government, the Obama people, were out doing it every day. Why is it a surprise they won? Citizens who won't do these relatively easy and simple things are never going to be able to defend their rights by force, and the chest thumping is annoying. The founders petitioned, fought pamphleteer wars, and visited Parliament for years before the first shot was fired back.

Did the Founders pick up their muskets when the Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided actual penalties for criticizing (see, Philadelphia Aurora) the national government, were passed by Adams' Congressional friends? No. They waited for the next election and voted them out.

Never said they were fraudulently elected. You asked if we should violently overthrow an elected government if we didn't like how they were doing things. So I gave examples of, yes, when and why we should. That was all. I will not wait 4 years of Martial Law and suspension of my rights to try to vote someone out who will most likely rig the election next time around. Once they have the power of Martial Law you really think they can't rig an election? And if you think they won't have the power to declare Martial Law, think iminent massive terror attack....