Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Sunday, October 13, 2013

Seen Outside The White House, Sunday, October 13, 2013



































Let's Stop Pretending the Confederate Flag Isn't a Symbol of Racism



"...a Tea Party rally including Sen. Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin succeeded in capturing some of the essence of the political world the rejectionist rump of the GOP is now inhabiting in scenes reminiscent of 2009's Summer of Teh Crazy.

Spurred by outrage at the closure of federal war memorials they demanded be closed along with the rest of the federal government, the crowd symbolically 'stormed' two closed memorials and then headed to the White House where at least one Confederate Flag proudly flew and far-right gadfly Larry Klayman, who has of late been calling for an uprising to unseat the President (scheduled for Nov. 19th), told the crowd to "demand that this president leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up."  ---Josh Marshall


Crooks and Liars on Klayman:

This isn't new for Klayman, whose reputation stretches all the way back to the Clinton years. But in recent months, he's been ramping up the rhetoric and stoking up those people who want a reason to believe that President Obama does not hold his office legitimately. 

 In July, he called for the military to overthrow him. 

In September, he vowed to force the "evil tyrant Obama" from office by November 16th. Then he slid the date to November 19th. 

 Just last week, he sadly announced that he believed violent revolution was imminent. He used the very same language today that he used in mid-September, except then he added some rhetorical flourishes: 

“[Obama] will finally know that his time has come to leave his perverted, Islamic concept of Mecca, our nation's hallowed capital,” Klayman concludes. “I do not advocate violence, but it is time we show Obama that we mean business. He would be well advised to ride off into his Islamic sunset, link up with 72 virgins and party on at his expense – not ours!”








There you have it folks.  Sedition* in all its ugliness.

*se·di·tion  
n.
1. Conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state.

23 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

I guess the American Revolution was an act of sedition. A very justified act of sedition.

There exists today a large number of "rebellious" folks who feel government doesn't hear their voice or concerns.

Perhaps we should give Texas and Alaska the option to succeed? Hell, if it went well we could give the other 48 the option.

My guess... none would take the option. But perhaps it might get a point across.

Actually, I must be tired. :-)

Duckys here said...

Red Sox win! Red Sox win!

Duckys here said...

Why hasn't Homeland Security picked up Larry Klayman. He's an obvious threat.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"I guess the American Revolution was an act of sedition. A very justified act of sedition."


Yes it was. Ben Franklin's famous "If we don't hang together, we'll surely hang separately." Was a reference to the seditious act the colonists were committing against England.

"There exists today a large number of "rebellious" folks who feel government doesn't hear their voice or concerns." --RN

I understand. But that's what we have elections for. If the people the people elected aren't listening, then we have the choice to vote them out of office. These seditious asshats do not like our form of democracy. President Obama won two elections, therefroe a mandate by the American people to continue his policies. A minority don't like what the American people chose, so instead of working to elect a different president, the insurrectionists are threatening the overthrow of the government.

That is not how our republic works.

The confederate states, and some mountain states, all lost their minds in November 2009. And it's only gotten worse.

That none of the TeaPublicans rejected what the traitor Klayman proposed tells us something about where their loyalty lies.

It's not with the U.S. Constitution. The document they love to tell people they love.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Ducky,

Two nail-biters last night: The Pats and the Sox! Saw the Pats win while having a great pizza at Regina's. The place went wild.

Klayman is the type of person the lunatics in the Tea Party see as a patriot. A guy who promotes sedition against the United States of America.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Paul Krugman:

"The Dixiecrat Solution":

So you have this neighbor who has been making your life hell. First he tied you up with a spurious lawsuit; you’re both suffering from huge legal bills. Then he threatened bodily harm to your family. Now, however, he says he’s willing to compromise: He’ll call off the lawsuit, which is to his advantage as well as yours. But in return you must give him your car. Oh, and he’ll stop threatening your family — but only for a week, after which the threats will resume.

okjimm said...

wait...Boston has a baseball team?
Say....when is the World Serious played....before or after Thanksgiving?

okjimm said...

ah, not to disrespect baseball...but if I want to watch something where the fans yell and scream and the players mostly wait around for something to happen...well, gosh... I will watch politics.

Shaw Kenawe said...



Steve Benen reminds us, this one is on Boehner

Except for Newt Gingrich in 1995, no one has ever shut down the government as a threat to get something they want. And except for John Boehner in 2011, nobody has ever threatened to breach the debt ceiling as a threat to get something they want. That's because it's basically nuclear chicken, threatening to destroy the economy unless you get your way. It's unthinkable.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

On September 30, 2013 in the stealth of night, behind closed doors and sequestered from public scrutiny, House Republicans changed the rules of the house and stacked the deck:

"The Rules Committee, under the rules of the House, changed the standing rules of the House to take away the right of any member to move to vote to open the government, and gave that right exclusively to the Republican Leader," said Van Hollen. "Is that right?"

"The House adopted that resolution," replied Chaffetz.

"I make my motion, Mr. Speaker," said Van Hollen. "I renew my motion that under the regular standing rules of the House... that the house take up the Senate amendments and open the government now."

"Under section 2 of H.R. 368, that motion may be offered only by the majority leader or his designee," Chaffetz said.

"Mr. Speaker, why were the rules rigged to keep the government shut down?" Van Hollen asked.

"The gentleman will suspend," Chaffetz interjected.

"Democracy has been suspended, Mr. Speaker."


A clear act of sedition, view the video here.

If the country defaults on Thursday, Civil War Part II will begin.

Sharing Minegold said...


I have always loved octogenarians til lately when I read some of the GARAGES over at the swimming pool known as Palliative Erections. Yuck!

Rational Nation USA said...

So, let em succeed if the MAJORITY in the individual states desire it. That would be Democracy at work, right?

While that isn't going to happen, and if states did have the option none would avail themselves of it I am getting tired of the daily BS the nation is being subjected to.

Call it letting off steam.

FreeThinke said...

You are correct, of course, Les. Remember the phrase "the right of the people to alter or abolish it" [i.e. the government]?

Leftists are all for liberty -- unless and until it threatens to challenge or impede THEIR agenda. LEftists believe in ONE WAY government -- THEIR way or NO way.

Perhaps that may be true of many conservatives as well, but being asked to entertain the notion that resistance, defiance, rebellion, and possible insurrection are bad things ONLY when initiated by Conservatives against policies they deem financially ruinous, potentially despotic and threatening to the overall best interests of the country at large, and of future generations is a display of wanton bigotry and petty partisanship at their worst.

What "liberals" cannot seem to get through their heads is that the country was DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to make legislative changes extremely difficult, and that we are SUPPOSED to argue and dispute one another vigorously, vehemently -- and unendingly -- lest we slip slide into authoritarianism.

What the Founders understood -- and we, apparently, have lost sight of -- is that ESTABLISHED POWER BLOCS of any description invariably become corrupt and run amok. Thus the need for constant challenge.

The country was bullied and bamboozled into this despicable ACA act. It was rammed through congress without ANY meaningful input or support from the Republicans whatsoever.

I am morally certain that the Chief Justice acted as he did NOT our of "conscience," but as a result of unimaginable, uncivilized, possibly diabolical pressure from the "higher-ups" who REALLY run things. Either that, OR Chief Justice Roberts is yet another "plant" -- like Justice Souter, or the unlamented Sandra Day O'Connor aka "The Swinger" -- and so many other terribly disappointing "Republican" nominees -- who sailed into the high court under false colors.

The persistent claim that this atrocity had the support of "The American People" is probably the biggest lie of a century noted for deceit and mendacity above all else.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Leftists are all for liberty -- unless and until it threatens to challenge or impede THEIR agenda. LEftists believe in ONE WAY government -- THEIR way or NO way.

Perhaps that may be true of many conservatives as well, but being asked to entertain the notion that resistance, defiance, rebellion, and possible insurrection are bad things ONLY when initiated by Conservatives against policies they deem financially ruinous, potentially despotic and threatening to the overall best interests of the country at large,"

I'm afraid you've got it all backassward in this case. The policy the TeaPublicans are having their fit over was passed by Congress and ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS. A perfectly legal piece of legislation.

Conservatives have decided that a completely legally -passed law needs to be overturned by threatening and blackmailing the United States of America and sending financial markets into chaos.

They are demanding that the A.C.A. be defunded, even though the American people returned, by a very comfortable margin, the president who delivered the A.C.A. to America.

It is the conservatives, acting like outlaw hostage takers, who have shamed this country and its ideals of democracy. I don't care how loudly and how hysterically they repeat their self-pitying lies about being tyrannized by this president. He has tyrannized no one.

The fact is that no tyranny was involved. The people voted for President Obama and the A.C.A. was passed, LEGALLY.

What is it about this simple truth that the seditious TeaPublicans don't understand?

And where did they get the idea that in a democracy, when a minority of a minority doesn't get what it wants, it's patriotic to take the entire country hostage and pee all over the Constitution?

The TeaPublicans had a chance to get rid of the A.C.A. in Nov. of 2012. They failed.

They can try to overturn it in the way our democracy works, by getting a TeaPublican in office in 2016.

What the Confederate TeaPublicans are engaging in is nullification of American democracy, and we've seen where that got them in 1865.




BB-Idaho said...

History informs that the original secession derived from some people in some states wanting to be free.
(to enslave others)
This time around the objectives aren't much better.

Rational Nation USA said...

Perhaps succession is the only way to avoid civil war and tyranny at the same time?

Reading, and listening to the tone of America recently I have begun to wonder.

Just sayin...

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

There seems to be a form of selective cut-and-paste by readers of this comment thread who confuse one founding document for another.

These readers refer to language in the Declaration of Independence, a document that severed all connections with State of Great Britain. Here is the quote:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it …

What follows next is this language:

… and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles (...) to effect their Safety and Happiness.

A document that severs relationships with an old government is not the same as one that establishes a new government, in this case: the Constitution of the United States, which states:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union (…) do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let’s be perfectly clear. One document sanctions succession from the State of Britain, while the other document defines treason against the New Government as a crime. Please refer to Article III, Section 3 for the definition of Treason.

If you continue reading, eventually you will find this:

The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned [Amendment 14, Section 4].

"Shall not be questioned" ... how do these words confer a right to surrender the validity of public debt to negotiation? To blackmail? Extortion? Hostage taking?

All presidents have a statutory obligation to preserve and protect the U.S. Constitution, as do all office holders in Congress.

Do readers herein understand these distinctions? Or will the cephalopod be forced to turn mean and surly!

Anonymous said...

The minority of a minority.

A trashy congregation of fetid vapors:

The incident happened at a conservative protest headlined by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, and radio host Mark Levin. Video shows protesters referring to security guards outside the White House — some of whom are African American — as “something out of Kenya.”

Some conservatives have claimed that President Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and promoted conspiracy theories related to his Kenyan ancestry.

Other protesters — some of whom waved confederate flags in front of the White House — referred to the trained security detail as “brown shirts” and the “Gestapo.”

The guards were protecting the White House from the raucous crowd, part of the small turnout (some reports indicate about 200 people) for the so-called “Million Vet March.”


Rational Nation USA said...

We have both the obligation and right to question HOW and WHY we (The United States) arrive at our gargantuan national debt. We do not have the right to question after the fact and we most certainly DO NOT have the right to question the debt obligation we created let along refuse to meet said obligation.

Time to wake up America.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

RN,
Earlier this evening, I was researching deficit spending under various presidents and discovered this:

(Percent change during presidency)
Carter - 42.3%
Reagan - 188.6%
GHW Bush - 55.6%
Clinton - 35.6%
GW Bush - 89%
Obama - 53.6%

Please note that the highest percentage increases were among Republican presidents; the lowest among Democrats. I'll finish my analysis later tonight and post my commentary in the morning.

Rational Nation USA said...

I've heard the 188.6% change during the Reagan years was how the west brought down the Soviet Empire. True? If so was it a positive development?

If conservatism is pegged to spending then the Reagan years were decidedly NOT conservative.

With respect to the Flag, Country, God, Mom and Apple Pie then yeah, more so. Interesting correlations.

It's early, time for my coffee.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

RN,
I was living in Europe during the 1980s right up to the fall of the Berlin Wall and traveled to the USSR several times. My impressions: The Soviet Union unraveled by itself without any help from us

Believe it or not, Chernobyl was a signal event - not in economic but in political terms. Perestroika and Glasnost were the political response - ironically the beginning of the end. Ironic because "Chernobyl" means "Wormwood" in Russian - the word spoken in the silence before the Apocalypse.

Rational Nation USA said...

I have heard others remark that the USSR would have eventually unravelled without Reagan and his military spending as well.

Others, like my brother who graduated from The University of Massachusetts with high honors and a degree in ecomnomics believe Reagan hastened, if not directly certainly indirectly by outspending them. IE: the USSR's economy simply could no longer support the level of escalation.

I don't pretend to know for certain, but I suspect there is a level of truth in both positions.

By the way, my brother also was in the last class to graduate from the Wang Institute of Technology. He was no Reagan supporter and as an economist he admired Karl Marx and his economic models.

Anyway, all this makes for interesting
discussion and contemplation. My brother and I can finally have unheated discussions.