Thursday, March 25, 2010

Alleged Threats Against Lawmakers Who Voted Affirmative On ObamaCare

By: Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA

I am very upset at the way the democratic controlled congress went about ramming ObamaCare down the throats of the American people. The majority (fifty nine percent) were opposed to this massive takeover of 1/6th of our economy.

Further, the ultimate loss of the freedom to choose is perhaps the the most troubling. The federal government, now run by the most corrupt and  power hungry progressive/statist group of misfits the country has ever seen, is shredding our constitution one day at a time.

For this every last one of them ought to be run out of town and sent to the unemployment line as they have long ago stopped working for the people they represent. They work only for their own corrupt interest and to remain in power. They lie, cheat, and steal from the American people. For this (and ObamaCare) they deserve the contempt most polls indicate people feel for congress.

Having said the above I go on record, as the owner of  Rational Nation USA, and condemn any and all threats of violence against lawmakers, or members of their families, because of their affirmative vote on ObamaCare. Their can be no place in a civil society for such threats and any person found guilty of such threats should face the most severe penalties the law allows.

As conservatives we must respect the rule of law . Threats of violence of any kind reduces the individual making such threats to the most base level of human existence, to the level of a primitive. Threat of violence, and or the use of physical force against those one disagrees with, not only shows disrespect for oneself, it also dishonors the very constitution you profess to value and uphold.

For a quick read on the alleged threat Politico has it right here.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. RN,

    Oh, poor, poor them getting mean phone calls because they, oh I don't know, imposed THEIR will onto the American people? Poor Democrats..I feel so sorry for this hardship you are facing.

    Listen, a brick here, a phone call there. Suck it up, you wussy Democrats. Did you honestly expect America to embrace your decision to rape our Constitution and enslave us by seeking to take control of 1/6th of our National economy? Are you that stupid? (Wait. Don't answer that.)

    You reap what you sow, or so I have heard. Welcome to the Harvest of American Discontent, you Democrat bastards.

  2. RN,

    The above comment was a rant.

    Truth be told, you are right in your evaluation and admonition that none of us should resort to physical violence whatsoever.


  3. Emotion is a wonderful tool to stir up crowds and whip them into an angry frenzy...

    Emotion makes great poetry; its not logical nor rational but it can hit the right buttons..

    If you feel as you do then don't apologize...

    If violence is what you want then advocate it...

    Movements based upon slogans, frustration, and anger either end up consuming themselves and dying out or they end up as totaltarian regimes...

  4. "As conservatives we must respect the rule of law ."

    i would disagree here, my friend. there are times when civil disobedience is a tool of necessity. our revolution was an act of civil disobedience to the rule of law at that time.

  5. ...oh and now you are proposing acts of civil disobedience to the existing rule of law...which means you are rebelling against the constitution and the United States of America...

    That does not make you a Patriot...that makes you a revolutionary...

    So, The Griper....who really is destroying this country?

  6. @TAO,

    "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."
    Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

    The Founders exercised great disobedience to an unjust ruler, and rightly so. Given the fact that this current government leadership is governing against the majority will of the People and are walking in open rebellion to the very Constitution people better than you and me died for, I must agree with The Griper.

    If the Founders sat around and whined about King George III, but were reticent to do what it took to gain their freedom from him, where would we be today? We'd be just another set of British Colonies. (Well, at least I would. I live in CT.)

    The Founders, using great foresight, wisely put accommodations and the right for the People to do what is necessary to remove from office any unjust President.

    Gotta love that.

  7. Well, you need to keep your powder dry...

    Barack Obama won a majority in the 2008 election and he as popular at this point of his Presidency as any other President in recent history...

    Your freedoms are no more under threat than they were with any other President in recent history...

    ...and your taxes have gone down!

    Looks like the glow of revolution just might not be burning as bright...even amongst those that cannot stand the thought that a liberal could be President...

    Gee, another radical freedomista who lives in a very socialistic state....Hmmm...

    Why do all the radical freedomistas live in California, Massechusetts, or California?

  8. @TAO,

    "...and your taxes have gone down!"

    Really? And which taxes, pray tell, might those be, sir?

    And of course I'll keep my powder dry, silly liberal. Like you would need to tell me that! Yeesh!

  9. About "civil disobedience".

    Civil disobedience is not unsanctioned violence. Unsanctioned violence is guerilla warfare. Tactically, they are the opposite of each other.

    An act of civil disobedience requires that you openly and publicly put yourself in the way of an unjust law and force the system promulgating that law to make you pay the prescribed penalty in order to expose a fundamental injustice for all the world to see.

    Anonymous vandalism is neither civil disobedience nor guerilla warfare. It is a coward's game.

  10. @anon,

    You said:
    "An act of civil disobedience requires that you openly and publicly put yourself in the way of an unjust law and force the system promulgating that law to make you pay the prescribed penalty in order to expose a fundamental injustice for all the world to see."

    Now that is a definition of civil disobedience that we all need to remember!

  11. Griper - Civil disobedience is not violence against a person or group of people. Anon defines it very well in his comment.

    I am all for civil disobedience in response to what is perceived(in this case actual as well as perceived IMO) as an unjust or unconstitutional act by the President, and or those in power.

    I am against threats of, or actual acts of violence... we have a legal system that can be and should be used in conjunction with acts of civil disobedience in the attempt to stop this abomination that is ObamaCare.

  12. Don - While I share your disgust and disdain for the process used by the democrats in congress to S*it this bill down our throats,it is not yet time to ready the muskets.

    We must, as the early Patriots, and Founding Fathers did before us, exhaust all peaceful means and all available options of civil disobedience first.

    Even as we blog and express our concern and dissatisfaction with the socialist/statist course of our country we as yet still live in the best country on earth.

    So... keep on blogging, networking, taking an activist roll... and speaking freely and openly. We do have the power to change things. First without threats of,or actual acts of violence.

  13. TAO -- the 'civil disobience is against the constitution'. And just where would that be found in the document? When the body of the congress and house have broken their oath to defend and uphold the US CON. The body of government which goes unsaid and much suppressed is the people, the forth branch.
    And it is this branch's duty to enforce by whatever means to ensure the Constitution word. It is not a living document as most liberals would like to believe. Funny that the whole of the people haven't read or studied the document but "know" what it says and means. And that comes with reading the intent that went into it. Reading and understanding the debates and resolutions the founders underwent to agree to the words chosen.
    And yes - I do agree that 99.9% of us have lived under this socialistic form of government with no problem until this liberal took office. But we have woke up to the fact that all -ALL- the failed policies that we are facing today are progressive policies. Social security - FDR - Medicare, medicade - LBJ and now Health care reform - BHO. Each one, the big fix, only having to be fixed again with a new shackle of enslavement to taxes. All the time, making dependency to government handouts unfelt and easy to swallow.
    The problem is we are full and want to push away from the table. Anymore will force the regurgitation of that poison with rebellion of re-revolution.

  14. TAO - I believe LandShark just had you for dinner!


RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, NO JUDGEMENT of others. We reserve the right to delete any such posts immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic (off topic will be deleted) and respectful of others.