Name: Del Wasso
Hometown: Lockport, IL
Home country: USA
Current location: Freeport, IL
Member since: Mon Jun 14, 2004, 04:54 AM
Number of posts: 1,994
Hometown: Lockport, IL
Home country: USA
Current location: Freeport, IL
Member since: Mon Jun 14, 2004, 04:54 AM
Number of posts: 1,994
You don't negotiate with this kind of madness. You couldn't even if you wanted to.
You try and get these SOBs the psychiatric help they desperately need, and then do what you can to make sure they don't EVER get their way on election day.
Posted by OneAngryDemocrat | Sun Apr 7, 2013, 03:48 AM (36 replies)
I've heard the "Defense Against Tyranny" argument many, many, times, and while some courts have acknowledged it, it has both an inherent legal and logical flaw.
The natural right of revolution, as espoused by both John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, was a concept that a tyrannical government could - and should be - overthrown by the people when that government no longer looked after the interests of the people being governed.
John Locke even described armed revolution as a duty and an obligation, rather than as an option which citizens could decide against.
The flaw in applying this concept to the Constitution's Second Amendment is in assuming that exercising one's natural right to revolution guarantees a republican form of government or - the legal flaw - a constitutional government.
Exercising one's right to revolution guarantees neither.
All it guarantees is revolution.
The Constitution was established and ordained with an amendatory process by which any part of and/or all of the Constitution could be altered or repealed. As long as that amendatory process remains intact and has not been rendered impaired, or was somehow repealed, we can assume that anyone taking up arms against the government is doing so in opposition to their duly elected officials - and not against the government which those officials represent.
That's not a revolution.
That is, instead, an insurrection, which the Constitution, referencing Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, clearly states is a criminal act to be suppressed and neither encouraged nor legalized courtesy of someone's distorted and twisted personal interpretation of the Constitution's Second Amendment.
And that brings us back to what this is all about: The constitutional or extra-constitutional interpretation of the Second Amendment, and precisely why the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed'.
While the right to own a firearm has been ruled as an individual right - and properly so, in my view - by the US Supreme Court, as opposed to a collective, group, right, the context is clearly for a collective, group, purpose: "A well regulated militia."
That purpose is clear because that is, after all, exactly what the Second Amendment says the purpose for the amendment is:
"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."
Obviously, the men who drafted and voted on the passage of the Bill of Rights' Second Amendment saw the right to own firearms as a prerequisite to a people's militia, and equally obvious was that this people's militia was to serve the federal government - not overthrow it, citing, again Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.
This people's militia was intended to be subject to FEDERAL regulation and FEDERAL oversight citing both the Constitution's Second Amendment and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15.
It is Congress' constitutional duty in that Clause, in fact, 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion' - making the federal government the master of the people's militia, not the target of that militia's armed might.
If that is the case - and it most certainly is - then Congress could be said to be derelict in it's constitutional duties when it fails to properly regulate the people's militia - for failing to do so prevents the people's militia from performing those activities which the Constitution says the people's militia is constitutionally obligated to do.
Any other interpretation of the Second Amendment under the hubris of a 'defense against tyranny' argument is therefore - in one way or another - flawed.
Posted by OneAngryDemocrat | Thu Feb 14, 2013, 09:42 PM (1 replies)
Do not remain silent.
Conservatives certainly will not speak out.
They will blame the lone, solitary, shooter...
They will blame liberal society...
They will blame anything and everything but modern-day conservatism, which preaches that liberals and democrats are the bona fide enemies of America and threats to the nation's very existence.
Only the most naive or apologetic of political observers could doubt that different right-wing conservatives would deal with the perceived threat liberals and democrats pose to them in different ways, and that some would, inevitably, resort to violence.
And as long as that is the case, as long as liberals and democrats are "the enemy" the bodies will continue to pile up.
And that leaves it to us to speak up.
We need not mince words - it is vital that we speak clearly and succinctly and firmly. We will not debate the issue; We are now making a demand: Conservatism must evolve.
It MUST change.
To believe otherwise is to help pass around the nails for the coffin in which the next liberal democrat will be buried in.
No one was out there speaking about the radical right-wing elements that threaten our civil society until Janet Napolitano issued a DHS report warning about extremists that might resort to violence - a report which conservatives across the country demanded to be immediately rescinded. Now that we have seen a series of right-wing assassinations take place, the original DHS report looks, in hindsight, to have been very timely and prescient.
We have seen Jim David Adkisson open fire upon the congregation of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church with a sawed-off shotgun, killing two, simply because he opposed the all-inclusive nature of the church, and of the church's liberal teachings. Adkisson wrote in a letter which he assumed would be his last, "I thought I’d do something good for this country — kill Democrats ‘til (sic) the cops kill me.” His hatred for his fellow Americans could not be contained: “Liberals are a pest like termites, millions of them … the only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is kill them in the streets, kill them where they gather.”
James von Brunn, a radical right-winger from Maryland sought to turn the nation's Holocaust Museum into a symbol for his particular brand of racism, when he went there with the intent to kill blacks and Jews, as an example to the rest of white America to emulate. Luckily for those visitors inside of the museum, the first man von Brunn decided to open fire upon was a black man who had the ability to return the favor, and so no one besides than the very heroic Stephen T. Johns died that day.
Shawna Forde, and two other members of the anti-immigrant Minutman group which she founded, the ''Minutemen American Defense,'' decided that one way to finance her burgeoning organization was to dress up as law enforcement agents, and to rob Mexican immigrants. When Shawna and her compatriots illegally entered the home of Raul Flores, and demanded money, the head of the family ordered the trio to leave, prompting the radical right-wingers to put a bullet into the head of little 9 year old Brisenia Flores, and into the head of her father. Unluckily for the conservative killers, Brisenia's mother was able to barricade herself in her bedroom, where she kept a handgun, and she was able to keep at bay her would be assassins until the real police arrived.
Richard Poplawski opened fire on police officers during a domestic disturbance call, in April of 2009, killing three of them.
The 23 year-old right-winger feared that the President was poised to take away his hand guns.
Just a few days after that shoot-out, two sheriff’s deputies in northern Florida were shot and killed by Joshua Cartwright who later was fatally shot by other deputies. The reason, according to Cartright's wife, was because Joshua "believed that the US Government was conspiring against him," and, according to her, he had been severely disturbed that Barack Obama had been elected President.
The list of victims from right-wing terror does not stop there.
Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, Arkansa Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller...
It goes on, and on: All of Eric Rudolph's many victims... followed by all of Timothy McVeigh's many more... the pre-eminent liberal leaders of the 1960's: JFK, RFK, and MLK Jr.
The list of liberal victims slain by conservative terrorists is LONG, and getting longer with each passing day that we remain silent.
For conservatives to hide blood-thirsty radicals within their ranks and to deny any responsibility in fostering the radicals bloodthirsty behavior doesn't help the conservative lobbyists attain their political aims and goals...
It, instead, helps the conservative terrorists attain theirs.
Posted by OneAngryDemocrat | Sat Jul 21, 2012, 09:16 AM (92 replies)
Mitt Romney opposes The Bring Jobs Home Act, aka S. 3364, which the President endorses. As Freeport, Illinois prepares to shed another 170 jobs to outsourcing, we, as Americans, need to question our candidates on the economy, international trade, and what is gained - and lost - with globalization.
To that end, the Rockford Sons of Liberty is asking each and everyone of our patriots to telephone the following elected officials and candidates running for elected office to support a Presidential debate on the same hallowed ground where Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debated the great issues of their day.
Please call Sen. Dick Durbin's Rock Island office between 8:30 am to 4:30 pm @ (309) 786-5173 and urge the Senator to support bringing the two Presidential candidates to Freeport, Illinois.
Please call the Obama for America Campaign @ 312-698-3670 and urge the President to debate his challenger in Freeport, Illinois.
Please call the Mitt Romney Campaign @ 857-288-3500 and urge the Governor to debatethe President in Freeport, Illinois.
This will be an ongoing, daily, event. That is to say, call these three numbers every day, and ask them how the plans are going in organizing this event. Politely remind whomever it is you speak to to expect a follow-up call the following day until the parties involved agree to come to Freeport, Illinois and answer to the American people.
Posted by OneAngryDemocrat | Thu Jul 19, 2012, 05:00 PM (2 replies)
So... I'm working the Stephenson County Democrats booth at the County Fair, right?
We're getting ready to call it a day when Republican Rep. Bobby Schilling walks up with an entourage of fascist Tea Baggers looking for a photo op shaking the hand of a local democrat.
I take the Congressman's hand and tell him, "We've met before, Congressman."
"You do look familiar," he tells me.
"Yeah," I tell him. "I debated Paul Ryan's bullshit budget you supported with the Tea Party's John Arn at the Rockford Public Library."
"I remember!" says the Congressman. "We're just doing what's best for America!"
"Getting rid of two tax brackets," I tell him - my voice getting a little louder, "and consolidating the rest so that middle class Americans get a tax hike isn't in my interests as an American, Congressman."
"We're going to have to agree to disagree," the guy says. "Don't you think that we're both trying to do what's best for the country?"
"Well, no, Congressman," I say to him. "I think some people have their own interests at heart, instead of the country's."
It's at this point that my voice is DEFINITELY above what could be considered a calm or level tone.
"Right down the street, here (in Freeport, Illinois), you have the Sensata company getting ready to lay off all of it's workers and ship operations overseas. Your response was to write a letter and "beg" the CEO of Sensata to reconsider the move. You are a Congressman, sir! Do you represent all those Freeport residents who are going to be soon out of a job, or do you represent the company?"
Instead of even trying to formulate any sort of reasonable response the man tries to say something about the President - but I interrupt the Congressman at that point and remind him that we're not talking about the fellow living in the White House, but just what it is he is going to do as our local Representative about a local factory closing shop shipping everything over to Communist China.
The guy knows he's not going to get any good press out of this exchange, being just a tad-bit brighter than all of his Tea Party supporters, smiles, and beats a hasty retreat without saying another word.
As he walks away I give it one more shot: "Do your job Congressman: Represent your constituients."
All the folks at the other County Fair booths around us just stand and look at me, like, 'What just happened? What did we just see?'
"That is how, folks, " I say as I return to breaking down the booth, "you talk to a do-nothing Tea Party Congressman."
Posted by OneAngryDemocrat | Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:36 AM (66 replies)
YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW
Fanatical anti-abortion activists have only themselves to blame for the constitutional ramifications of the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in regards to Roe v. Wade.
Forty years ago, anti-choice activists attempted to play God by mandating that women seeking to have an abortion would have to go in front of a state-appointed panel who would determine for the patient whether the requested procedure was, in their eyes, a "good abortion" (a pregnancy that was the consequence of rape or incest, or would endanger the life of the mother), or a "bad" abortion (the consequences of poor family planning).
This was, of course, in total disregard of the reality that the actual medical procedure was the same, no matter what the moral decisions were leading up to the procedure's necessity.
The Supreme Court therefore properly ruled that government could not intervene, simply on moral grounds, between a patient and the private medical decisions they made in consultation with their physician. Government can not deny a women the right to have an abortion because they disapprove of how the pregnancy came about any more than they can withhold pain medication (such as morphine) from a criminal undergoing surgery who was injured in the act of committing a crime.
The Commonwealth of Virginia's recent legislation, passed into law under the ruse of looking after a woman's health, mandates that a patient seeking an abortion must now undergo a medically unnecessary nor requested ultrasound and simply throws gasoline upon the fire in the ongoing abortion debate.
The Illinois Agricultural Committee is now attempting to draft a similar bill down in Springfield.
Virginia's ultrasound law and Springfield's proposed bill will, most likely, fail to pass constitutional muster because it does not mandate that all expectant mothers in Virginia and Illinois undergo a similar procedure - revealing the law's anti-choice partisan roots, and violates the 14th Amendment rights of the citizen seeking to terminate a pregnancy. All expectant mothers have the right to choose an abortion - not just those sitting in an abortion clinic's waiting room.
Furthermore, if found to be constitutional even in part, the anti-choice ultrasound legislation adds new and powerful support to President Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act: another law most anti-choice advocates today oppose for purely partisan and political reasons.
If state government has a legitimate interest in protecting a citizen's health - which both Roe v. Wade and Viriginia's ultrasound advocates say they do - then so too does the federal government.
Anti-choice conservatives should rigorously consider just what it is they are doing when they choose to dress up and play the nation's Morality Police: You reap the political consequences of the partisan seeds which you sow.
Posted by OneAngryDemocrat | Wed Feb 22, 2012, 09:04 PM (7 replies)
Go to Page: 1