brokedickdog
Posts: 114
Joined: 8/13/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella
-FR-
Revolutions are violent, brutish and ugly things, and the only thing worse than a revolution is the government that takes power after one.
Your author shouldn't use the word so casually, it helps those "2nd Amendment solution" supporters glorify the idea of revolution even more.
Do you want to kill the president? Because he mandated that you buy private health insurance and some talking head managed to convince you that's "socialism"? Maybe spray his brains all over his car like they did with Kennedy, will that bring jobs back to the US? Fuck it, go blow up the White House, sending the national guard to stop riots will totally help secure the border.
Really now the US is an utter mess and I'll be the first to admit that, but a lot of people need to realize there's a difference between the American Revolution, which was a war against colonialism waged against an overseas King, and a bloody coup d'etat simply because you disagree with the decisions the President is making.
For serious.
Truly I don't intend to slam you. Yours is just a post that presents me an opportunity for the following response. I would also like to be clear that I do not advocate in favor of a revolution.
A fresh read of the Declaration of Independence would likely help to clarify the reasons for the American Revolution. There were many. Here is a (my) butchered, condensed version.
- The King of England refused to pass laws for the benefit and protection of the "colonials."
- The King of England forbade his colonial Governors to do the above.
- The King of England did not, and would not, allow the colonists to have reprentatives, or a voice, in any legislature. This went well beyond the popular phrase of "No taxation without representation."
- The King of England used his military as a harassing police force and did harass and badger the colonists.
- The King of England protected his military from prosecution of any offenses, including murder.
- The King of England denied the colonists the "benefits of trial by jury."
- The King of England charged and tried colonists for "pretended offenses" and transported colonists "beyond the seas" for pretended trial.
- The King of England made "judges dependent on his will alone" for their jobs and compensation.
- The King of England "has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."
That last one is, in my opinion, particularly heinous. Conspiring with Indians to war against the King's own people. Hired mercenaries in essence.
The paragraph following the last quoted above reads "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petition have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."
Wikipedia has the following definition of tyrant:
"Plato and Aristotle define a tyrant as, "one who rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics -- against his own people as well as others". [1] In common usage, the word "tyrant" carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population, which the tyrant governs or controls." [emphasis added]
I think it reduced to this: The colonials did not feel they were adequately represented. They did not feel that laws were being enacted for their benefit or protection. They did not feel they had access to the courts, or to justice. They also felt they were being abused, and that to the point of theft and murder. They attempted to effect changes through peaceable petitions for redress. Those petitions were met with no suitable response.
Conditions today are not so different from 240 years ago.
Our elected representatives typically do not respond to the will of the people. Two relatively recent examples of this are the war in Iraq and the bank bailout of 2008 (and continued bailouts as TARP was far from the only one). In polls taken at the time of both of those events the citizens were, in both instances, against in numbers between 2/3 and 3/4 depending on the poll. In Washington politicians consider 55% of the vote to be a MANDATE. Yet they ignored percentages much greater than that on those two issues.
In terms of passing legislation that protects the people our representatives typically fail again. Further they pass laws that favor the few instead of the many and repeal prior laws whose purpose and effect was protection of the people. The repeal of Glass-Steagle is but one example.
Another similar example of the above is the degree to which elected and appointed "regulators" do not actually regulate. Timothy Geithner misinforming a Senate panel that as head of the New York Federal Reserve he never had any regulatory authority is an example. There are scores of others. The recent Gulf oil spill is another.
Failure to enforce the laws currently on the books is also similar. Again I look at the 2008, and subsequent, bailouts of private financial institutions. There is no authority for the Federal government to "bailout" private corporations. In fact there is positive Federal law that has a wholly different required response: Insolvent institutions are required to be taken into receivership. I refer here to the Prompt Corrective Action law that was enacted in response to the Saving and Loan crisis of the 1980's. This can be found at Cornell Law, and at wikipedia, at the following links:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode12/usc_sec_12_00001831---o000-.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Corrective_Action
Our judiciary also appears to have become corrupt. By that I don't necessarily mean our courts are on "the take." But dispensation of justice, with full due process AND equal protection, is consistently nonexistent. Most criminal matters are not adjudicated at all. Instead prosecutors trump up charges and threaten citizens with unwarranted charges and penalties as a stick. The carrot then offered is "Or you could just plead guilty to these lesser charges and we won't go to trial." This looks very much like the "pretended offenses" mentioned in the declaration.
There are also many issues in civil courts. It has become axiomatic that a citizen will not prevail against a business or corporation, and this regardless of whether the citizen is plaintiff or defendant. In the vast majority of case the citizen looses at the trial court level, and usually in a summary proceeding. This is looks very much like denial of trial by jury mentioned in the declaration.
The only option available to a citizen becomes an appeal. Trial court judges are aware of the enormous costs involved in prosecuting an appeal. Most citizens do not have the resources to pay an attorney to do this for them, neither do they have the where with all to represent themselves. As a result trial court judges are aware there is little chance any improper decision they make will be over turned on appeal. Additionally our judiciary enjoys a very broad immunity. With no effective penalty for ruling in conflict with fact and law they have nothing to loose, or no skin in the game.
Another stench in the nostrils of Lady Justice is the squelching of the long established doctrine of jury nullification. This dates to the Magna Carta and was presumed to be the best way for the citizens to maintain ultimate power in courts, and thus over the fair administration of justice. In essence juries are empowered to rule not only on the facts but also on the law. In the instance of a law considered by the jury to be unjust a defendant could be acquitted in spite of the facts.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification) is the following: "First Chief Justice of the US John Jay wrote: "It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision... you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy". State of Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1, 4 (1794).
The wiki link generally has an accurate condensation of the history of the doctrine of jury nullification and comports with the research I did several years back. It does however diverge somewhat. There have been some recent examples of the doctrine being upheld (by recent I mean in the past 20-30 years, which in a country with a 234 history I consider to be recent). Wiki does not list any of these rulings favorable to this doctrine. I will not belabor either myself in re-finding these examples or you by foisting them upon you. If you're truly interested it shouldn't require much online digging to find them.
Lastly, as this is becoming rather long winded, I will suggest a read of "The End of America," authored by Naomi Wolf. Not a long read but certainly enlightening. She has researched and considered the elements needed to convert a free society to a police state. By examining recent historical examples of police states she has developed a rather short list of the elements necessary to do so and has identified that the US has incorporated the majority of them already. I'm sure her book is available from many sources. There is also a youtube video of an oral presentation by Wolf in 2007 at the following link. I forget the venue. The video is less than one (1) hour long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
Given the aforementioned (and the numerous other issues and examples not mentioned) it should come as no surprise to anyone that the citizens are becoming rather restless. When government ceases to be appropriately representative of, and responsive to, the citizenry, unrest is usually what happens in response.
Further this citizen sayeth naught.
As this is becoming rather lengthy
|
RE: Without a Revolution, Americans Are History - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread