Crazy Rep. Michele Bachmann Calls for Armed Revolution

reply to post by Jay-in-AR


I was there when the Taliban were our allies and the current president of Afghanistan was the head of Union Oil. He reported then that the pipeline would never be finished until the Taliban were defeated. The money powers that be just bided their time and found the right event to use to get their way. They even made him el Presidente to keep him brought.

Hey, did anyone ever figure out how jet fuel that burns at 1350* flash hot manage to melt steel that only begins to melt at 2500*+? But, that’s the topic of another thread.


[edit on 3/28/2009 by SGTChas]

It surprises me that nobody has done anything about all this. She's deffinately got the right attitude even if it probably is for the wrong reasons. Both parties, especially over the last 20 years have greatly overstepped their authority and the time really has come. Unfortunately I don't have the resources but someone somewhere needs to be the first to start this. It's not an easy path as anyone could figure out. Blood, death, and tears would be found for anyone who got involved but for the future someone has to do it.

reply to post by SGTChas


Yeah, it is amazing that when one sheds light on these matters from a perspective of personal experience, they are disregarded.

The Government is very good at keeping these things suppressed.

Originally posted by pteridine
Patriots, March if you choose but do not go to Washington, armed. The leaders of these kinds of movements want martyrs and they don't wish to personally volunteer for the position.

Who the hell ever said anything about marching to Washington armed? That's idiotic. And the "leaders of these kinds of movements" — let's just call it what it is, Revolution — are not looking for martyrs. The socialist pigs running our country into the ground and murdering our liberties will give us enough martyrs, once they realize we're standing up and standing against them in earnest. Many of the Founders of this country sacrificed more themselves than practically anyone else in the first American Revolution. They lost their families, homes, their wealth, their lives.

No, if there is another revolution in America, it won't be the Patriots lined up on one side with the Government Stormtroopers lined up on the other, exchanging volleys of gunfire on a field of battle in the obsolete European tradition. The next revolution will take place on our doorsteps, with individuals defending their homes and their families and property against unconstitutional search and seizure. It will be up to every individual to weigh his freedom against the "peaceful security" of the totalitarian state.

Peace means nothing without Liberty. Security means nothing without Liberty. People need to get that through their thick skulls, shake off the comfort of peaceful enslavement, and decide — probably for the first time in their lives — exactly for what cause they are willing to give their lives.

The last thing the central government wants is footage of American troops and National Guardsmen opening fire on American civilians. They will not risk that kind of negative publicity, because it will ignite the nation. Rather, they will shackle the free press; they will ruin the careers and reputations of any spokesmen of patriotism; they will characterize the Revolutionary Patriots as "domestic terrorists"; and they will amp-up the lies that they've fed us for the last 70 years, such as "You cannot love your country and hate your government," and "Violence is never an option."

The Founders of our nation very surely loved their country and hated their government, and they learned very quickly that violence is an option — sometimes the only option — in dealing with a tyrannical central government. Indeed, if the citizens do not return the violence that is inflicted upon them, then the only other option is Death.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Did you follow the thread?
The person who mentioned being armed is a congresswoman.

That is what this thread is about.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


May I humbly suggest that yours was one of the best post in response to this thread; amen and amen.

There will be no lack of ‘first shots’ when the powers that be figure out that the gig is up. We will not have any doubt of who is on what side, of that be sure. That because you can best bet that in this struggle there will be no ‘sunshine patriots’, the mortal struggle for the soul of America will leave no middle ground; all who have taken ANY political stand will be targets as if they stood to struggle for any cause, they could turn and fight in this one.

Either we will be rounded up headed for FEMA Detention Centers to be disposed of later, or we will fight. They will insure mass confusion by sealing off the cities and leaving them to the mercy of street gangs until all submit (AKA New Orleans and Katrina), while they attempt to pick off hard targets in the countryside. The point being that there will be no neutrality in this conflict; to believe otherwise is to be a very dead fool.

Even still, know that the vast majority of our armed forces KNOW the score and will not fire on the American people. Which the powers that be have suspected and is why they have been quietly preparing foreign troops to enter the fray; also why they are keeping as much of our military off shore as is possible. All of this has been long planned. Nevertheless, we will win.


[edit on 3/28/2009 by SGTChas]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Did you follow the thread? The person who mentioned being armed is a congresswoman. That is what this thread is about.

Yes, I've been following the thread and contributing to it. I understand "what this thread is about"... It's about a "crazy" elected official publicly warning other presumably sane elected officials of the inevitable and unspeakable result of crushing American liberties. It will result in a new revolution or a civil war. And I applaud her "crazy" courage. Now let's get some men in high office to grow some balls and do the same.

— Doc Velocity

To paraphrase JFK -

'Those who would make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolutions inevitable'

So lets see how our peaceful revolution shakes out.

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Doc I have never met you, but I sure do think we are of kindred souls; or could it be we are just Americans?

Once again wisdom.

God help us all.

If people can't see that we are being played like a hand of cards in this matter then I don't know what else to say.

Yeah, I'm all for going to the marches and even doing things that would be considered risky in their optimism, but to say that I applaud someone who is calling for Americans to arm themselves in opposition to a government that she herself did nothing to stop in the first place is insane.

Like I said earlier, why hasn't she been on the house floor fillabustering these bills that have ransacked this nation?

Why hasn't ANYONE?!

It is because this is all planned.

The only thing that will stop this in its tracks is a clear message by the people on the streets. BUT NOT WITH WEAPONS!

Good lord.

]reply to post by Jay-in-AR


Not to gang up on you Jay, but the Doc is right. One of the greatest ways the opponents of freedom have kept the truth from being spoken is by the all encompassing fear of sounding un-politically correct. This of course failed with me as I was born as about as un-politically correct as one can get; I’m a conservative, totally unbigoted, Christian Virginian who was educated before the ravages of outcome based education had brain washed the sheeple.

[edit on 3/28/2009 by SGTChas]

reply to post by SGTChas


I don't give a damn if you gang up on me or not.

Like I have said before, if you think this woman is on an even kilter, go grab a gun and march on Washington.

See where that takes us.

I'm ready for that reset button to be pushed anyhow.

Go ahead. Don't write your reps telling them that you want them to stop. Knock on their door with a pipe-bomb instead.

Guys, guys, were all on the same team, as mentioned before.
I see both sides here. What if thats what they want is armed
revolt? What if thats part of the big plan? Sure looks like there is one!
Maybe that gives them the excuse to execute the next phase.
We agree on so much, we also all want the same outcome.
Maybe a peacefull revolt is the only way left!
Seems to garner the most media support, which is critical!
(and may be a lot less bloody for the little peeps)

I'm just trying to think of the least nastyist solution for all of us!


[edit on 28-3-2009 by dodadoom]

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I'm all for going to the marches and even doing things that would be considered risky in their optimism, but to say that I applaud someone who is calling for Americans to arm themselves in opposition to a government that she herself did nothing to stop in the first place is insane.

Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I understand the Constitution, nobody needs to call for Americans to arm themselves. It is a right guaranteed to us. For Bachmann to call for Americans to take up their arms in defense of our Liberties is not only sane, it's not only constitutional, but it is the duty of the American People in securing a free state.

Somewhere along the line, during the inexorable expansion of central government, those in high office, those who thrive on power, decided that the only way to secure their power was by perpetuating the myth that peaceful resolution is the only way to affect change in government.

But that, my friend, is a lie.

Even as they strove to domesticate and pacify the masses, the power mongers in every branch of government additionally endeavored to insulate themselves from the Constitution, with the objective of undermining the Constitution and destroying it. The only threat to their totalitarian goals lies in the Constitution itself, for that document grants ultimate power to the People. It even grants us the right to take up arms and flush out the corrupt and power-hungry from our great halls of government when necessary.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
Like I said earlier, why hasn't she been on the house floor fillabustering these bills that have ransacked this nation? Why hasn't ANYONE?!

Has she not? Are there none who have previously spoken out in the House and Senate, only to be laughed down and overridden by partisan blocs? I know that unconstitutional and anti-American legislation is hurriedly formulated and rushed through both houses of Congress on a regular basis. This latest power grab known as the Economic Stimulus package is a perfect example — no single member of Congress nor the president has read the entire bill — they don't even know what's in it! Yet it has been signed into law without thorough examination and comprehensive debate.

Who among the members of Congress had the power to stop that bill? None. Nobody knew its contents, nobody knew how to object to it. The president himself should have stopped it on that basis alone. Just so, our Congress regularly defies the Constitution and the will of the American People, creating and passing laws that are eroding our Liberty, destroying our national wealth, and diluting our sovereignty.

It is obvious that those in the high offices of government are no longer serving the People, but are serving their own agendas. Thus, they have negated the effectiveness of our traditional procedures for "peacefully" challenging and changing government. The People, therefore, have the right to resort to a higher authority and a guaranteed course of action — The U.S. Constitution.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
The only thing that will stop this in its tracks is a clear message by the people on the streets. BUT NOT WITH WEAPONS!

I refer you back to the Second Amendment.


— Doc Velocity






[edit on 3/28/2009 by Doc Velocity]

reply to post by dodadoom


The point here is that people can't have it both ways.

Out of one side of their mouths they are saying that this woman is a patriot, but out of the other they are saying that she doesn't MEAN it when she tells people to grab a gun.

She is deliberately sowing the seed of chaos and somehow this is alright?

I'll ask for the third time, why haven't I seen her name before in the middle of a 20 hour long fillabuster protesting HERSELF the initial TARP legislation?!

Why hasn't ANYONE?!

This is planned. That is why.

Telling people to grab guns and be "dangerous" is nothing more than a play on the OVERWHELMING majority of STUPID Americans who couldn't tell you the first thing about the TARP legislation in the first place!

Even if they could then they would be forced to delve three levels deeper to understand my objections to this SH1T! That simply won't happen.

No, instead we need to PRAY for peaceable means to these solutions. Not the dramatic hyperbole of a paid propagandist!

[edit on 28-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Sorry "my friend" but I didn't read all of your post.

Two sentences was enough.
I don't need a lesson on the 2nd amendment. I understand it quite well.

I think the thing you overlook is the part that the Founding Fathers of this nation made it quite clear that if the populace has exhausted all other means THEN AND ONLY THEN should they take up their weapons.

I'm sorry, but the people of this nation cannot say in good conscience that they have exhausted ANYTHING...
Other than their lust for porno and beer.



[edit on 28-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

reply to post by weedwhacker

Michele Bachmann is a crazy whacked right-wing-nut off the skids completely batty idiot

You know, the main name caller on this thread is you. In fact, virtually all of your arguments boil down to nothing but name-calling. Why don't you stick to rational arguments, and leave out the name-calling? Anyone that doesn't agree with you is a "right-wing" nut.

Just look at your statement above. Do you really think you will convince anyone of your beliefs with such talk? Try that talk in the real world, and see how far you get.

I won't bother to respond to people like you who cannot have a rational discussion without the name-calling. Have a nice life. Congratulations- you just made my ignore list.

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
I don't need a lesson on the 2nd amendment. I understand it quite well.

And it scares the hell out of you, which is why you oppose even the fleeting idea of armed revolution. But take heart, you're in good company as you tremble in your bunny slippers — the socialist pigs infesting our government are also terrified of the Constitution.


— Doc Velocity

reply to post by Doc Velocity
Star 4 U!

At the very least they're guilty of Dereliction of Duty...

Dereliction of duty
en.wikipedia.org...

In the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), dereliction of duty is addressed within the regulations governing the failure to obey an order or regulation. It means that one willfully, through negligence or culpable inefficiency, fails to perform one's expected duties. Ineptitude is a defense against the charge. The maximum penalty in the U.S. is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay and six months confinement. Acts which are derelict may be charged under more specific offenses such as missing movement, noncompliance with procedural rules, misbehavior, malingering, self-injury with intent to avoid service, or straggling.

Civilian dereliction is usually classed in common law as criminal or civil negligence, recklessness or malpractice.

At the most Treason...

Treason
en.wikipedia.org...

:snip:

Outside legal spheres, the word "traitor" may also be used to describe a person who betrays (or is accused of betraying) their own political party, nation, family, friends, ethnic group, religion, social class, or other group to which they may belong. Often, such accusations are controversial and disputed, as the person may not identify with the group of which they are a member, or may otherwise disagree with the group leaders making the charge. See, for example, race traitor.

At times, the term "traitor" has been levelled as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term "traitor" is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the German Dolchstoßlegende, the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message.

[edit on 3/28/2009 by Hx3_1963]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Who the hell ever said anything about marching to Washington armed? That's idiotic.

I would say it was hastobemoretolife, the poster with the line drawing of a SIG for his avatar:
"If people go marching to Washington DC armed to the teeth that sends the message that we are serious and prepared to use force if necessary, but we would rather this go down without blood shed. It is basically using our 2nd amendment right, in the capacity that it was written."

And the "leaders of these kinds of movements" — let's just call it what it is, Revolution — are not looking for martyrs.

Leaders always like martyrs to their cause and will manipulate the unwitting to get them.

The next revolution will take place on our doorsteps, with individuals defending their homes and their families and property against unconstitutional search and seizure. It will be up to every individual to weigh his freedom against the "peaceful security" of the totalitarian state.

This sounds like a lot of shootouts, to me. The rest of your speech made it sound as though the true patriots should decide when enough was enough and be ready to die for what they believed in. This brings up the problem of the bather and bathwater. If the water slowly gets hotter and hotter when will the bather know to get out? When will the rebels decide to act and what will they do? Ask yourself when you would sacrifice your life and the lives of your family without the nagging doubt that maybe you were premature and would die in vain.