This is the 21st Century. No 'army' can secede:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://freeadam.net/2013/05/24/adam-kokesh-march-50-state-capitols/

So that idiot who wanted to bring around 10,000 armed people to the Capital to provide a demonstration of willingness to 'defend' rights by provoking a firefight in the event that this demonstration without a permit had gone off now revealed his true colors.He's called for an army of secessionists to menace the United States. Except that this is the 21st Century. No army can menace a government that can spy on its enemies from space. No army can succeed in such an endeavor here, and if such idiocy must be unleashed, it is only justifiable if it can win its war that it sets for itself to fight. In the 21st Century no such thing like this is possible.

The people who agitate most loudly for the Second Amendment as a license to commit treason neglect that the Constitution empowers the Feds to use all due force in the event of a domestic insurrection. Of course I expect that there'll be a lot of comments to this arguing that his call for an army of treason to march on state capitals really isn't a call for that, that never say what it really is. That's predictable. So would be the prospect that once again, like that damn fool earlier in the Obama Administration that threatened to 'do something' if Obama didn't resign and Ted Nugent, who predicted he'd be dead by now that nothing at all happens. But this is why people can be and are skeptical of the so-called Second Amendment crowd. Because the right to keep and bear firearms is no guarantee against a tyranny these days, and any pretense it is will end up with a lot of dead people and a war already lost. And it's even more interesting how the people who damn Communists, Hamas, and Hezbollah, as well as the Taliban, also turn around during these kind of discussions and argue that they should emulate the folly of the people they hold as terrorists and the antithesis of freedom and of all that is best in humanity.

Comments

[404.livejournal.com]

When a government has repeatedly and deliberately failed to follow its own laws, violated the fundamental human rights of its citizens, threatened the sanctity of a free press, created institutions intended to eliminate privacy of communication, waged war at the behest of special interest that threatens the public safety, killed hundreds of children with drone strikes, imprisoned and destroyed the lives of countless individuals for victimless crimes, stifled economic opportunity to maintain the dominance of the financial elite, stolen from the people through an absurd system of taxation and inflation, sold future generations into debt slavery, and abused its power to suppress political opposition, it is unfit to exist and it becomes the duty of the people to alter or abolish that government by whatever means necessary to secure liberty and ensure peace.

Sounds like something you might hear at an OWS meeting.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It also sounds like something you'd hear at an Ayn Rand fanboy meeting, given their peculiar definitions of public interest and debt slavery, as well as suppressing political opposition.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Looks like the shift is from saying "waving loaded guns isn't VIOLENT" to "OWS does it too!"

[404.livejournal.com]

Actually I'm not. The rhetoric is similar.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Only in that both are the rhetoric of dissent. You seem absolutely intent on pretending that overt threats of violence are no big deal and an insignificant difference.

[404.livejournal.com]

I guess you'd know all about Ayn Rand fanboy meetings to be able to so clearly connect the two, right?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/obama_and_slavery.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/tyrants_looming_obama_and_the_dictators_of_south_america.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/12/belafonte_obama_needs_to_work_like_a_3rd_world_dictator_and_jail_republicans.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/obamas_second_term_transformation_plans.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/president_obamas_plan_for_a_socialist_one_party_state.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/05/marriage_equality_and_the_public_interest.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/m-where_is_john_galt.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_ayn_rand_vs_jesus_christ_campaign.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/red-baiting_vs_rand-baiting.html

There we are. A nice sufficient look at the Randian-Christian mindset for you to peruse at your leisure, assuming you asked this question straightforwardly and in good faith.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Got some statements from the OWS that would back your analogy up? And since when were OWS demonstrators armed with loaded guns?

[404.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you could look for some, but I'll do it for you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street
OWS's goals include a reduction in the influence of corporations on politics,[87] more balanced distribution of income,[87] more and better jobs,[87] bank reform[68] (especially to curtail speculative trading by banks), forgiveness of student loan debt[87][88] or other relief for indebted students,[89][90] and alleviation of the foreclosure situation.[91] Some media label the protests "anti-capitalist",[92] while others dispute the relevance of this label.[93] Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times noted "while alarmists seem to think that the movement is a 'mob' trying to overthrow capitalism, one can make a case that, on the contrary, it highlights the need to restore basic capitalist principles like accountability."[94] Rolling Stone writer Matt Taibbi asserted, "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."[95] In contradiction to such views, academic Slavoj Zizek wrote, "capitalism is now clearly re-emerging as the name of the problem."[96]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/27/occupy-wall-street-isnt-h_n_1035988.html

http://www.alternet.org/story/153542/ows_fights_back_against_police_surveillance_by_launching_%22occucopter%22_citizen_drone

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10022780522

And since when were OWS demonstrators armed with loaded guns? See below:
http://www.in5d.com/occupy-wall-street-the-marines-are-coming-to-protect-the-protestors.html

[telemann.livejournal.com]

That last link: golly gee, where's all the guns? Two videos are no longer available, one video of a guy in NYC walking down the sidewalk surrounded by cops and a planned demonstration, but no guns visible and no call for weapons to be brought to the demonstration.

Lol4ever.

[paft.livejournal.com]

Are you seriously claiming that stating the goal of "reducing the influence of corporations on politics" is equivalent to waving loaded guns and telling the government, "disband or face the consequences?"

The only thing similar in the rhetoric of OWS and the rhetoric of Kokesh's band is that both are expressing dissent. The fact that OWS is nonviolent and Kokesh's group isn't is no small difference.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

so, uh...

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Sounds like something you might hear at an OWS meeting.

Personally, I thought a lot more like that lover of liberty and true patriot, Ron Paul.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I like his cheer-leading for Chinese capitalism. It brings Foxconn to mind.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

rhetoric may be similar but approach is different, OWS didn't march with loaded guns in hopes the police would start a firefight with them, the Marines and Army came on their own terms to protect the protesters from harassment by the police.

The criticism is not aimed at simply being disgruntled at the government, it is aimed at the potential danger that could come from marching on our nation's capital with loaded guns, either disguising a protest as an out-and-out civil war or vise versa.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Mention of the drone strikes especially give it an Occupy! look and feel.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Except for the part about treasonous armed rebellion, AMIRITE?

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

pffft details, details... What matters is there's some remote change that the left wing has done something wrong so everything is balanced in the world.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

However:

as the American Revolutionary Army will march on each state capital to demand that the governors of these 50 states immediately initiate the process of an orderly dissolution of the federal government through secession and reclamation of federally held property. Should one whole year from this July 4th pass while the crimes of this government are allowed to continue, we may have passed the point at which non-violent revolution becomes impossible.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That's what the people who came up with this said they wanted, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America

I don't think these people mean peace any more sincerely than their idle parasitical slave-raping predecessors did. There is no means to 'peaceably' demand dissolution of the Union flashing loaded weapons. That is not a guarantee of a peace in our time. BTW, anyone who approves of this kind of thing is pro-terrorist.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

"By any means necessary" is clear.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

What I find so funny is I was watching a clip of "The View" from 2007 where Joy Behar listed all the reasons why Bush needed to be out of office, and Obama's done similar things without one cry for GET HIM OUT coming from the Left. Hypocrisy on a massive scale.