Democrats Fear Violent Backlash to Illegal Healthcare Legislation

The people in charge are trying to foment this civil war.

Take a look at the 90's. There were many incidents intentionally meant to strike up the fever pitch. They failed.

I would not be surprised in the least to learn that these threats come from natural citizens and then carried out by elite units. Intercepted communications are the basis. Then some agency gets involved in order to use the situation for political gain. Farfetched, perhaps.

Ben Frankln, (cnote), decided that if you want the government to provide liberty or security.... You deserve neither. He was right.

The bottom line is that we are all on the same mission. Gov realizes that and uses it against you. Hegelian dialectic works so well on the masses.

People want to be free. People want the freedom to live. Its free to give birth unless you are dumb and principled, then you spend 10,000 - 20,000 $.

Violence really is abhorable, yet, thats what they want.

Brew up the civil war. We can emulate Somalia.

From the link..

I’m seeing reports this morning that Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had one of his offices shot at on Monday night. Cantor, of the Jewish faith, is #2 Republican in the House of Representatives and was responsible for ensuring our caucus united against Obamacare.

Something just doesn't make sense here.

The bill passed.

Any enraged Democrats would have been "enraged" during the debate leading up to the passage.

The idea that they would be so "enraged" by Cantor's year long opposition to the bill that they would suddenly shoot at his office window....AFTER they got what they wanted...AFTER bill they wanted so dearly passed...hmmm...it doesn't make sense.

After the bill passes?....Nope something smells.

Am I the only one that is confused?

reply to post by dfens


That is OK, a civil war in the US means an invasion of the UN into America soil, after all, so many countries with investments in the US they need to protect those investments.



Can you imagine Chinas troops patrolling DC?

Maybe this will knock them down from that pedestal and let them see through our eyes for a change instead of telling us what we want and getting upset when we deny it. Its like a parent arguing with their child, the parent is defensive and angry that their child no longer conforms to their idea of what is best. Eh, something like that.

Someone threw a brick through a window.........

And....

Someone planted an IED on a road somewhere in A-STAN where my brothers and sisters are bravely serving.

Whom do I care about......

Sorry, I've no sympathy for cowards.

IMO This is what happens when "socialists" fire the first shots.

Also, isn't it ironic that the angry pitchfork and torch bearers were never able to get an audience with the broom-rider nor her minions when they traveled to DC to voice their discontent with the bill because she was too busy, but then she went strolling through their ranks to taunt them right after she finished casting her death spell.

reply to post by kinda kurious

Vote for whom? Many have lost faith in either party , if their plan was to turn this into a partisan affair , it has only fooled the soft-minded. The two party "Govahmunt" is now arc welded to Big Business , siamese twins joined at the head. So tell me how to separate the two , they have stopped listening to the people and do as they please.

Ron Paul is looking like a candidate if he runs independently , who knows , but if even he , also perpetrates another violation it will push the people over the edge. When ARE they supposed to fight back , when the fascists come for their taxes or kills one of their family members? The people's patience is wearing thin.

reply to post by dfens

This is exactly what I've thought all along.The Hegelian Dialectic , why keep poking at the beast lest it bite off your head. The NWO want this Revolution to happen so badly , they've collapsed the nation's moral , educational , cultural and economic values through color of law and coerced America into this corner. The next step to paint dissent as terrorism "BIG BROTHER KNOWS BEST , DON'T TALK BACK , DON'T DEFEND YOURSELF"(B*&$h slap).

So my advice is try to avoid violence when you can , never kill innocent people , only terrorists do that , if you do it will play right into their plans.(When I say "you" , I'm talking generally , no one in particular).

Originally posted by mrsdudara
How long before they insist neighbors report anyone meaning them (the govt.) harm. Or insist you keep an eye out for "domestic terrorists" who appear overly patriotic?

They already do - passed 1909

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 4
§ 4. Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Didn't take long did it?

Originally posted by De La Valletta
reply to post by dfens

 

This is exactly what I've thought all along.The Hegelian Dialectic , why keep poking at the beast lest it bite off your head. The NWO want this Revolution to happen so badly , they've collapsed the nation's moral , educational , cultural and economic values through color of law and coerced America into this corner. The next step to paint dissent as terrorism "BIG BROTHER KNOWS BEST , DON'T TALK BACK , DON'T DEFEND YOURSELF"(B*&$h slap).

So my advice is try to avoid violence when you can , never kill innocent people , only terrorists do that , if you do it will play right into their plans.(When I say "you" , I'm talking generally , no one in particular).

Dissent as Terrorism Hmmmm - Where have I heard that one before?

Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act

Meanwhile, the bill recently introduced by Joe Lieberman and John McCain -- the so-called "Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act" -- now has 9 co-sponsors, including the newly elected Scott Brown. It's probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades, far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act. It literally empowers the President to imprison anyone he wants in his sole discretion by simply decreeing them a Terrorist suspect -- including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil. The bill requires that all such individuals be placed in military custody, and explicitly says that they "may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," which everyone expects to last decades, at least. It's basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla -- arrest him on U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no charges.

Some of you patriots don't sound like you love America

I only wish you neocons would have been so upstanding last decade, we would be better now...

Saddle up yer eagles and shine yer six shooters

reply to post by kinda kurious
Your quoting he said she said,and the View,come on.Where are the police reports with proof?I have seen some reports and nothing about families being threatened.

No doubt there are some nut jobs out there and no doubt you shills are going to try to put this all on anybody who disagrees with Obama and his agenda,the people pushing Obamas agenda have more to gain then anyone to have things like this happen and already have commited crimes,look in your own house if you want crazy.

You have all your talking points lined up shill but untell I see solid reports and proof that this isian't just wakoos from the left trying to start a war you know what you can do with your egg.

Originally posted by jerico65
Sorry, I've no sympathy for cowards.

Cowardice is posting inane rhetoric like this on the internet anonymously...or throwing bricks through windows and running like hell

Originally posted by jerico65
IMO This is what happens when "socialists" fire the first shots.

No "socialists" involved...no "shots" fired.
Keep anonymously aping the GOP rhetorical theme about firing lines and shots ..yada..yada while talking about cowardice though.

Originally posted by jerico65
Also, isn't it ironic that the angry pitchfork and torch bearers were never able to get an audience with the broom-rider nor her minions when they traveled to DC to voice their discontent

You mean the people calling representatives the N and F word?

It's a good policy to ignore folks like that...they have issues.

I don't understand the outrage.

This is what the American people chose when they voted in a liberal president and a filibuster proof Congress. Wrongly, in my opinion, but the liberals just finally had the votes to do what they have wanted to do since at least the early 90s when Clinton was president.

I don't fault the liberal politicians. The American voting public simply gave them the power to grasp their holy grail. Nothing secret or conspiratorial in that. Again, I don't like it. But if you were surprised they didn't stop after the Scott Brown election or the bad polling data, then you misunderstood the nature of the modern, liberal politician.

Solution: get active in politics and get out the vote. The same thing that the liberals did. It was all out in the open for everyone to see. And yes, voting still matters. See Gore v Bush if you need further explanation.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by Sibilance]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
I must disagree. You infer that violence is somehow justified...

I infer no such thing. Violence is not justified at all. My only point is that those exploiting violence for political gain may incite more violence.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by dfens

 

That is OK, a civil war in the US means an invasion of the UN into America soil, after all, so many countries with investments in the US they need to protect those investments.

Can you imagine Chinas troops patrolling DC?

They don't need to patrol DC; they already own it! We will willingly give them California, but everything else is off limits! I don't think you will be seeing any "Peacekeeping" troops over here!

I am concerned with the amount of military and equipment that is far from home though! Seems kind of suspicious that even our National Guard is deployed overseas. This is the perfect "worst-case" scenario that would play into the hands of a would-be Socialist takeover.

I don't honestly think Obama's cahones are that big, and I think he is given much more credit than he deserves for our situation, but I have to admit that the writing is on the wall, and we should be very careful with our next few chess moves!

reply to post by DoomsdayRex


I re-read your post. In my haste, I regret I must have misunderstood this part and took it out of context:

And Cantor is right in that those politicians are playing with fire. By driving a wedge between the American people, trying to marginalize a sizeable group and demonizing them, they are inciting further violence.

I now grasp your overall sentiment. Sorry, I generally agree with you.
I must be jumpy and juggling too many threads.

I retract my assertion and ask you accept my humble apology.



[edit on 25-3-2010 by kinda kurious]

I'm sorry, did you actually read my post??

Originally posted by maybereal11
Cowardice is posting inane rhetoric like this on the internet anonymously...or throwing bricks through windows and running like hell

What's "inane rhetoric" about my statement? Go back and read it again.

Originally posted by maybereal11
No "socialists" involved...no "shots" fired.
Keep anonymously aping the GOP rhetorical theme about firing lines and shots ..yada..yada while talking about cowardice though.

Well, the healthcare program can be viewed as something a modern social democrat would plan. They like some things run by the government, some things private.

"Shots fired" Hmmm...haven't heard of "figure of speech" before, huh?

And twice you mentioned "anonymously". How come?

Originally posted by maybereal11
You mean the people calling representatives the N and F word?

It's a good policy to ignore folks like that...they have issues.

Right. Well, they can really do what they want. Ignore the people protesting or confront them. Both have their pros and cons.

reply to post by rick1


Is that all you got out of my post? Did you not understand the discrepancy between having insurance, and not having insurance?

Don't people deserve quality care in a hospital regardless of income?

How many of the following Major Medical insurance companies operate in all 50 states?

Aetna
American Association of Retired Persons
American Family Insurance
American National Insurance Company
Amerigroup
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Assurant
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association
Celtic Insurance Company
Centene Corporation
Cigna
Coventry Health Care
EmblemHealth
Fortis
Golden Rule Insurance Company
Group Health Cooperative
Health Net
HealthMarkets
HealthSpring
Humana Inc.
Independence Blue Cross
Independent Health
Intermountain Health Care
Kaiser Permanente
LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon
Magellan Health Services
Medical Mutual of Ohio
Metropolitan Health Networks
Molina Healthcare
Premera
Principal Financial Group
Regence Group
Scott & White
Shelter Insurance Companies
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
UnitedHealth Group
Unitrin
Universial American
WellCare Health Plans
Wellpoint

Doesn't the fact that these insurance companies that already operate in every state nullify the Republican argument that this is an unconstitutional bill that violates the 10th Amendment? But in fact, it places it directly in Congresses jurisdiction under Article I Section 8. Thereby making this legislation not illegal but in fact completely compliant to the wishes of the founding fathers.

If I were to argue the federalist papers in this case you would have to understand that some of those papers in fact argued against the bill of rights. Specifically Federalist # 84:

t has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Carta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John...It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations. "We the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government....

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power.

Thankfully though, we do have the bill of rights.

As far as the General Welfare Clause in the constitution, perhaps Alexander Hamilton can explain it better than I...

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

reply to post by whatukno


You know totalitarians especially corporatists could argue anything is Constitutional to enact their codes.

Notice I said codes, not law. See law is not to infringe upon the rights of the governed.

That has been long gone for a long time.

Since there is no more land to discover and settle. I guess the next and only step is to gather the free minded individuals that still care about rights and start to secede from the Empire.

You know fascist/socialist tyrants could argue putting to death people for the good of the collective.

I wonder when the tyrants are going to start rounding up the dissodents and place them in re-education camps.

That is usually the next step when the citizens begin to ACT up.

How does it feel to be a tyrant?

It really is idiotic, and I hate to put it this way but, politicians get death threats all of the time. There are a lot of crazy people out there and I can easily see how after the passage of major legislation the amount of crazy-mail they get goes up.

The letters are not what concern me about the state of mind in the United States. The actions are what are starting to worry me. The guy flying his plane into an IRS office in Texas, the guy that walked up to a Pentagon checkpoint firing, those things have my attention.

Starting next week I'm going on-assignment in the United States for the month of April, to take the pulse of the nation and report on it for the people of the United Kingdom. I'm going to New York, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Texas, Oregon and California. I am really looking forward to this, and I have been doing a lot of preparation for this.

So far, no I do not believe at all that the United States is heading for either a revolution or a civil war. I think the vast majority of the truly pissed-off are armchair revolutionaries, including most of you here on ATS that speak of it all the time. You are not going to lift a finger beyond buying a cool gun to bring it about. Which is good for America really.

Some however will take matters into their own hands, and I think there may be some domestic terrorist attacks coming up for you there in the United States. I hope I find out that I am wrong about that next week.