reply to post by boondock-saint
I am sure I'm not the only person to have thought of this, but is it possible, perhaps, that the government heard of this happening on April 19th,
realized that it was scheduled on the anniversary date of the "shot heard round the world," and got scared....and that is why they decided to
suddenly start raiding the militias?
I have no idea if it is true that those militias were or were not planning on hurting police officers. If that is true, then I'm glad they were
stopped before they could hurt anyone.
However... if they were not planning on hurting anyone, and the government decided to just make an excuse to start raiding the militias as a "show of
force" - all I can say is hmmm....
I agree with everything in the articles. I have been saying much of that for years. I myself have ranted a few times here on ATS about how the POTUS
does not have the constitutional right to send in tropps without the congress declaring war. And you know what the response I get is? "Declaring War
is old school....we just don't do it anymore." WTF?? There was a REASON our founding fathers put that in the constitutionn, and that is so our
president can't go around ordering troops into foreign lands like a KING can.
Yes, the president is the commander in chief in the event of a war, but that doesn't mean that the president alone should have the power to START
wars. The fact that our presidents have been doing this since WWII gets me so angry, yet it doesn't seem to bother anyone else. And yet, despite how
badly these "police actions" or whatever they want to call them, always turn out, they continue to do it, over and over again, and never learn from
their mistakes. THAT is what the founding fathers were hoping to AVOID.
The other stuff I agree with, too. For example, I admit I wanted health care reform...it was ridiculous that people who got sick were dropped from
their insurance policies, or refused insurance for pre-existing conditions. (Myself included!) But the government went too far when they mandated that
people must carry health insurance, otherwise they are in violation of the law. It should be a personal choice if someone wants to carry health
insurance or not. They should have made it illegal for health care providers to discriminate against pre-existing conditions, or made it illegal to
drop someone from health insurance who got sick....discrimination has been illegal for a long time now, so discriminating against pre-existing
conditions would have had a precedence. But to make it a law for all people to BUY health insurance....that is just absurdly un-American. It was just
another example of a corrupt government being bought out by big corporations...the insurance corporations. They had a chance to do something amazing,
and they screwed it up. I should have known they would do something this stupid and corrupt....yet, I was an idiot.
However, even though I'm angry, I am torn about going to an event on April 19th. On one hand, for years, I have been hoping that people will stand up
and say "this isn't right." On the other hand, I abhor violence, and I don't want to go to something that could turn violent. Then again, there
comes a point when every American needs to have courage to stand up against their government when they feel their government is abusing and
over-reaching their constitutional authority, and this is probably one of those times. The more people who show up, the more chance we have of being
The funny thing is that I am not even right-wing a conservative. I have always considered myself to be "middle of the road", yet I strongly believe
that there was a reason that everything in the Constitution was placed there. I don't know if there is something as a "constitutional moderate" but
if there is, that would be me.
edit to add:
What I want to know is what they mean by "take civic action" if millions of other people sign the pledge. Does that mean violent action? Peaceful
action? Political action? That point needs to be clairfied.
Sadly, the government doesn't listen to their people anymore. The only thing they listen to is money. So, personally, I think the only thing they'll
listen at this point would be a giant tax revolt. If enough people just said: That's it, no more. I will not give my government any more of my
hard-earned money to wage war on other countries, and kill other people.
After all, I don't give drug addicts money to buy drugs. I don't give alcholics money to buy alcohol. Why should I give power-addicts (congressmen
and senators and presidents) money to get more power by waging more illegal wars, passing more corrupt laws, and pocketing millions of dollars for
serving the corporations and the special interests?
Enough is enough. If our "leaders" in Washington are going to behave like irrational children, then I say, let's treat them like irrational
children and CUT OFF THEIR ALLOWANCE.
[edit on 1-4-2010 by nikiano]