Treason in America

[Just-a-Writer]

I've been thinking about this since seeing the "Second Revolution" flag on television and online. Couple a new flag with dissidents waving guns at peaceful meetings, and you have acts of treason. These are folks threatening to "over throw" the current government.

Our leaders need to step up and make it clear that they are where they are because we the people of the United States of America voted them into their current positions. We the people, the silent majority, also need to step up and tell them loud and clear, "We voted in a civilized, organized manner, and we will NOT tolerate the threats of violence from a loud, hateful group of traitors."

Their justifications always begin with "what you did to Bush." Well, let's look at it. When the Congressional Democrats disagreed with the speech Bush gave them, they boo'ed... ONCE. Did they shout out "You lie!" at him? NO. Did they carry signs or bills in to wave for the cameras? NO Did they get up and storm out? NO

Thousands of people refused to let their kids to go school if they had to listen to the president's back to school speech. Did we ever deny Bush a voice in our public schools? NEVER.

Churches rallying around with "Who Would Jesus Hate?" signs meant to reference that Jesus would hate Obama. Did we ever make the prideful declaration that the Son of God would surely hate President Bush? NO WAY.

Thousands of people insist that President Obama is the Antichrist. And they are serious! Did we organize the less educated into believing such a nonsensical thing? NO.

Thousands of people might sound like a very large number, but one must remember: there are 600 million people in America. That makes these vocal thousands a very small minority.

These same thousands feel as they are the ones doing God's work. They consider themselves the saviors of souls and the rightful heirs to this nation. What they don't accept is that their behavior is actually contradictory to God's teachings, to Jesus' desires. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

Six things there are which the Lord hates, and the seventh His soul detests:

1) Haughty eyes, showing pride in your eyes as you scorn others.

2) A lying tongue, such as the outlandish claims made by Limbaugh, Beck, Wilson, and all of the others that have "bore false witness against" the President and regarding what is and isn't in any of the proposed bills.

3) Hands that shed innocent blood, the war in Iraq, every crazed gunman we've seen here in America. People reacting violently to the changes they aren't ready to accept.

4) A heart that devises wicked schemes, such as hoping that Obama fails, or those who only want to prevent President Obama from doing anything positive for fear a Democrat will get credit.

5) Feet that are swift... to rush into mischief, such as the conservative activists that set up 4 ACORN workers and attempted to set up many, many more.

6) A deceitful witness that utters lies, Limbaugh, Beck, Wilson...

and THE BIGGEST, 7) He who sows discord among brothers.

Liberal Americans have never denied obvious evidence that the elected president was in fact a natural born citizen, they have never tried to block legislation that was sorely needed, and they have most certainly never threatened to over throw the government.

They, WE, have accepted, even though it was grudgingly, that we lost elections. We made plans, but only to better educate voters by the next election. We were called traitors, but we never engaged in traitorous acts, such as creating a new flag of plotting an coo.

My message now to the ultra conservatives out there with blood in their eyes and revolt in their hearts is this: We the People of the United States of America, in an attempt to form a more perfect union, will stand and defend the nation we have worked so hard to create.

[Tina]

Here Here JaW, As always a passionate and wonderful speech. Bravo, I have been singing this song for months, maybe it will be heard by you, we can hope!

[Just-a-Writer]

I hope that people realize that despite our dislike and disrespect for President Bush, our behavior DOES pale in comparison to how President Obama is being treated now.

I watched Bill Maher last night, and he posed an interesting question to Richard Clarke, former White House terrorism adviser. He asked him if we were attacked by terrorists again would everybody rally around the president as we (WE ALL) did with President Bush, or would he be blamed for it. Mr. Clarke made a very good point. President Obama will be blamed, because Dick Cheney already said he would be.

Nobody from the Clinton administration made any public announcements or displays to under-mind President Bush's authority, not like Cheney and others have done with President Obama. OK, yes, they did juvenile things like rubbing the 'W's off of keyboards, but they did NOTHING to discredit the new president.

Why would terrorists need to bother with us? We seem to be perfectly capable of destroying our own nation. Add ignorance and stir.

[Westerly_2]

why is that? They're loud, and loud makes news b/c it fills the screen? Are people so desperate for new/solid material?
the majority is for reform - straight up, and you don't get that even from news orgs that sell themselves as "fair and balanced." It's misleading, and it's all about ratings.
whether or not reps get the messages from the non-shouting people, I am not sure.Do people write their reps any more?

[Madhatterat60]

why the media plays these idiots up

Money, pure and simple. These idiots sell copy (or air time). As much as we scorn and heap disdain on such reports, how many of us stand in line at the grocery store and read screaming, titillating headlines from The National Weekly Tattler? While it may be easy to dismiss such a claim off hand, keep in mind that the "newspaper" with the widest circulation is The National Enquirer. Last I heard (and it's been several years) The National Enquirer circulated more than 4 million copies A WEEK. You need look no further than the drek that passes itself off as 'fair and balanced' on cluster Faux News.

[Judi]

Oh, goodness . . . a professed agnostic quoting God to stave down the small minority! How weird and weird, and all kinds of wrong. If we're going to use the Bible, let's at least put things in context:

Rom 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.

Mat 7:1 "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.
Mat 7:2 "For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Mat 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
Mat 7:4 "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye?
Mat 7:5 "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

[Just-a-Writer]

And if I were trying to get through to a group of UFO buffs, I'd be quoting the MJ-13 manual for them.

And as much as I appreciate the other Biblical quotes, they have ignored those already. Had they refrained from passing judgment then they wouldn't be getting judged now. (as Mat 7:2 states) They tend to ignore these with the caveat that for a person to be pointing them towards these scriptures is in itself passing judgment on them. And around and around that can go, eh?

In my opinion, and as I attempted to point out, if one chooses to weld a sword, they should be very careful not to fall upon it.

[Judi]

If they break laws, they should be arrested and receive due process. I don't think bugging the hell out of others or speaking one's mind is a crime, yet, nor is quoting scripture. Of course, the convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit may make one feel as if they are being judged, but it's not the person quoting the scripture doing the judging.

I agree, though, that if a person is doing something illegal, immoral or unethical, they should be held accountable for that. Fortunately, we still have laws that should dictate where the accountability lies and the repercussions. So far, though, expressing freedom of speech may induce bad manners and mean-spirited epithets, but it is not against the law, yet.

[Just-a-Writer]

You're absolutely right. Bad manners, poor decorum, twisting truth, and flat-out lying (with the exception being in court) is not illegal. And like the Westboro Baptist Church congregants before them, they walk precariously on the line between legal displays and actual legal treason.

But if terrorists decide to take advantage of this national divide, I blame the teabaggers, birthers, and conservative talking heads.

If health care reform falls completely to the wayside instead of having any real change, I blame them.

If anything should happen to President Obama or any of this family members, I not only blame them, I hope that the courts find them guilty of inciting the behavior. Whether they are ever charged or not, they have been guilty of inciting riots throughout town hall meetings and other public shouting matches across the country.

But it's nice to know that there are those out there that find unpatriotic behavior fine as long as it doesn't break any laws... now. I wish there was such leniency when we disagreed with Bush.

So Judi, since you find their behavior defensible (is it "their" or "your"?) please tell me the logical reasoning behind parents fearing a speech for children by a president, for the first time in history? What is the logical reasoning for fearing health care reform? What is the logical reasoning for bastardizing the American flag and virtually declaring war against your own nation?

I hope you answer these questions instead of simply vanishing... again.

[Judi]

Hey, that last pot shot wasn't necessary! I leave to go to the bathroom and often have trouble finding my way back, or maybe I don't like the daggers being thrown en masse (sorry, but I'm just like that . . . call it a character flaw).

FIrst, I don't find "their" behavior defensible, except for the fact that they have the "right" to do what they are doing. That is the ONLY thing I defend, their "rights". After all, that is why my daughter and many Americans' families are sacrificing their lives and their families' lives.

I stated on a number of threads, one of them in this group, that I would not have kept my daughter home from school for a 30 minute speech from our POTUS. If 30 minutes is going to destroy her little mind, then we have a bigger problem on our hands! Liberals say the reason is racial, I say bullsh*t! Yea, I imagine the KKK and skinheads have a problem with the race thing, but good grief, there are enough philosophical differences between the current administration's policies and the conservative citizens of this country, foreign and domestic, for several volumes of books to be written! If liberals feel the need to throw around a straw man to divert from the real issues, there is not going to be any stopping them, but if you look at the complaints being raised, whether liberals find them valid or not, there are numerous issues (e.g., abortions, stem cell research, the "czars" surrounding our POTUS, problems with ACORN, government bailouts, his comments about the Bible/his faith, our shaky grounds with Israel, etc.). Those are just what I can come up with off the top of my head, and I personally may or may not agree with him on a number of issues, but these are many of the conservative challenges with his philosophy/policy, NOT his color, sheesh!.

I don't know what is "logical" about fearing anything, but I can understand many of the concerns. As you know, I work in the health care industry, and the "devil is in the details", if you will. There were a number of things Obama said that were just not correct, and changing a whole system is not something that should be done until many, many challenges are worked out. Conservatives recognize the need for change, but their ideas of how that should be accomplished are much different than the liberals. Why are they wrong and the liberals right? And why is it that because there is disagreement, the "other side" are called nasty names? Jeeze, Louise!

Okay, uh, "bastardizing the American flag" . . . that is just plain stupid, just like flying the Confederate flag. The Confederacy is no longer, so that just shows ignorance, IMO. The other flags you showed, well, honestly that is the first time I heard of it (keep in mind I don't own cable and don't watch the mouthpieces of either side of the aisle). We are the USA, and the only flags we should be waving, IMO, are the standard USA flag and our individual state flags. If someone flies another flag, then that goes under freedom of speech, I believe, and unless they are breaking a law, we have to put up with people like that. That doesn't mean their neighbors can't protest and peer pressure applied. If they officially declare war against our nation, then I'm sure the FBI and CIA are right on it, don't you?

What I see, from both sides of the aisle, is a lot of hate-mongering, BOTH sides. Both sides have legitimate concerns, and both sides have their own extremists and weirdo freaks. Welcome to America!!

[Just-a-Writer]

It wasn't a "pot shot", several times now I've tried asking you this and you haven't responded.

Although, I guess it could be considered a "pot shot" if that was where you were at... ;-)

OK, gonna read the rest of your post now.

[Just-a-Writer]

Since you don't watch the talking heads, then maybe you haven't heard the finer points of the conservative dissent.

Senator Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, shows no concern with reforming health care, in any manner, only in taking down President Obama. A quote:

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo," Mr. DeMint told conservative activists on a conference call in July. "It will break him."

The source: HERE

That doesn't demonstrate a differing idea of how, but a dismissal of the need entirely.

Ronald Reagan did speak to school children of his political agenda, yet nobody challenged George H.W. Bush when he decided to speak to them as well. In both of those cases, judgment was reserved until after the speeches were given. Philosophical differences is more of a strawman than the painful realization that there are actually that many people with racial issues in America still. You know I don't use that phrase lightly, please don't imply that I do.

And yes, the devil is in the details. And yet, when a "debate" comes up about health care the details are thrown aside in favor of false information. Granted, I don't see any of the bills as perfect, that would be delusional, but I don't see scraping the entire process as helping either. And that is what the Republicans are trying to do. The end of life counseling that was recently dropped from the HR 2300 bill was written by a Republican. It's a practice that is used in Alaska. See the hypocrisy of attacking it?

Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, a sponsor of one such measure, gave an interview to the Washington Post on August 10, in which he discussed the benefits of these counseling sessions "both for the sanity of the family and what savings the family has."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/

And again, to address the fact that you don't watch mainstream media, I'm assuming you've missed this flag. That flag I put up there (and I only put the one) is being referred to as the "Flag of the Second American Revolution" by people who are trying to cause a civil war. Just google that, and you will find page after page of lunacy. And many of the pages are the same but with different designs and addresses. One nut sharing a diatribe and several nuts picking it up and copying it. I was going to provide a link, but there were so many that came up there was no picking just one.

I personally don't care if they walk around waving a flag with a picture of their asscheeks on it, it's the concept behind the flag that has me up in arms.

You can play fence walker, but you won't be able to find this level of animosity coming from the left. Not now, not during Bush's administration. I tried and it just isn't out there. And if you can find evidence of it, I strongly encourage you to share it. But from what I've found, the Right beats the Left at crazy, hands down.

[Judi]

If you mean by "fence walker" that I'm not going overboard in trashing either side, that's true. I don't see one side being any worse than the other. Again, there is a difference in how the hate-mongering and craziness is to be played out. Its 6 of one, half dozen of another, and it's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

I do find that the hate speech over here in this group is much more vile than over on the WTP group, but again, "eye/beholder". Read the comments here and in the liberal atheist group, and see it from a conservative or Christian perspective, if possible. I think you, more than some, might be capable of a more objective critique.

In regard to the racist thing, I was not referring to you, but to what I've read from grace linda, mark, vernon, et al. I can understand why all motives, to them, must seem racist, since that's where their worldview begins and ends, it seems. No, I'm not naive and realize that racism is alive and well. After all, jacquin hates whites, particularly of the male variety, lol. So, racism and sexism are still alive and well on planet earth.