Why have all the violent calls for revolution or secession in America always had something to do with taxes and/or property* while the non-violent movements have all been about expanding individual liberty and human rights*?
And why are Glenn Beck and Chuck Norris pimping for another revolution by “right wing cells” to overthrow the elected government of the United States? For what else can a program to be aired by Beck with the name “We Surround Them” possibly refer to other than a threat of violence against not only the Obama administration but also anyone and everyone who doesn’t believe as Norris and Beck do?
* The Revolution was sparked by tax protests and debt owed by Virginia land owners to British interests, Southerners who favored secession did so because they considered slaves to be property, the Native Americans were slaughtered and ethnically cleansed for the land they lived upon.
** For example, Women Suffragists, the Civil Rights Movement, the Gay Rights Movement, Pro-Immigration marches, etc.
Update [2009-3-10 8:46:18 by Steven D]: Norris and Beck are not the only crazies. Watch this video by a group called “Restore the Republic” calling for soldiers and law enforcement to not only to disobey President Obama but to be prepared to arrest and detain federal officials.
I can’t answer for number 1, but as for number 2?
It’s because they are idiots trying to build ratings. Sorry, i just refuse to take a fat closet-case with a bad haircut and a walking piece of beef jerky seriously. I just can’t do it.
Why do so many of these right-wing nutjobs look like the fat kid that nobody picked for the team and couldn’t get a date either?
…adding “we surround them”?
Has beck looked at a map lately? does he understand the meaning of “surround”
Like Custer had those Indians surrounded.
.
If you can stomach them … read the comments.
Bunch of bigoted morons running scared. I guess ’cause school is for librals, the reds missed some education. Live by the gun, die by the gun. I will never accept religion or church teachings that do not uphold the fifth commandment: “thou shall not kill”.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."I did. Typical Freeper crap.
Norris says that Texas will be the state to lead the next secession. I say if that happens, let the damned state go. The rest of the union will divide up the monies that Texas would have receive from the national government in various forms of financial assistance.
Maybe, a number of the other red states will go with them and the blue states can divvy up their federal aid grants. Also, the many military bases in the various red states would have to be paid for by those same red states. As far as I know, all or most all red states get more in aid than they pay in taxes. It is the reverse in the blue states.
I’m sick and tired of this situation so if the conservatives want to rectify it, they have my blessing. I’ll cry all the way to the bank.
(I realize this is just my fantasy, but it’s kind of fun.)
Actually, I think Texas is one of the few Southern states that is a net payer into the Federal system – they pay more in Federal taxes than they receive in Federal dollars. Can’t find the cite now, so I could be wrong.
If Texas pays more federal revenue than it gets, it’s from oil revenue. The oil companies would never let Texas will never secede. They’d lose control of America. But if they do secede can we give them Oklahoma as a going away present?
then watch how fast mexico moves in and takes its land back.
No. There are a lot liberals in Texas, and if the state wasn’t gerrymandered all to hell, Democrats would be in charge there.
If your candidate doesn’t take office, that whole unity thing goes out the window. Great patriots they are. < cough, cough >
Well, out here in Minnesota that whole “taking office” thing has gone out the window.
I just can’t bring myself to look at this kind of thing.
<bjark, byark>
Chuck Norris stars in perhaps the greatest paranoid cheesy celluloid agitprop of all time, “Invasion USA.” The advertising tagline was: “No one thought it could ever happen here…”
It is fantastic, merging all the fears of mid-Reagan era reactionaries, where truckloads of Cubans and Vietnamese join together with Russian mad geniuses to capture Florida and attach magnetic bombs to school buses and only one man who can dropkick his way through a crowd can save America. Of course, the federal law enforcement is powerless against the invasion, and only Chuck, allied with the American military, can bring the Godless to their knees.
A great Netflix rental. The world is alive with the sound of feet hitting skulls.
[Also consider that Wesley Snipes, who was selling those exercise machines with Norris on those infomercials, is doing time for tax evasion, yet another right-wing theme.]
Political conservatives were repudiated by the voters and they just can’t take it! The calls for violence are mind-numbing. I mean-Wow! Talk about a total inability to handle rejection. You really gotta wonder-are these people dangerous? And if so, how dangerous?
You’re confusing two different things here.
One is that the “non-violent movements” (to which I would include such non-Leftist things as the ballot in California to ban homosexual marriage) are democratic in nature. That’s why they are largely non-violent.
A democratic movement, whether to advocate FOR or AGAINST homosexual rights, voting for women, you name it is seeking change within the system. That is to say, via the ballot box, signing petitions, marching, etc.
The state has a complete monopoly on any force not deemed to be immediately for self-defense. Therefore any advocacy or use of violence is inherently not seeking change from within the system and is therefore undemocratic.
Therefore you’re mixing two things together, one is advocacy for change within the system (democratic) and one without (revolution, succession).
That being said, there were non-democratic movements, such as the KKK, which had little to do with either property or taxes. Or the Weather Underground or the SLA or you name it.
And there were peaceful, democratic movements for RESTRICTING human rights, such the anti-gay marriage advocates in the recent election.
Pax
The two are not mutually exclusive, particularly in the eyes of clownservatives like gingrinch (misspellings intentional) norris, and the rest:
taxes and property- which is to say wealth, are totally intertwined with liberty and human rights– of the Wealthy Class. THAT is where progressives part with the clownservatives.
the wealthy class believe (yes, they do) they are entitled to wealth and privilege, and they are entitled to low taxes, zero or low gov’t regulations, etc. which serve to protect/extend their wealth.
go further than your asterisked items; i.e. wealth and property were required at the start of our nation for anyone wanting the “right” to run for office and vote for representatives.
women, blacks, and indigenous peoples had ZERO rights.
there are plenty of people in the U.S. who believe that is a good and just system.
Too bad… They have their comments set to be approved. I tried to mention that it was a great comedy.