Thread: Repeal or Revolt

If Congress does not repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in its entirety resentment will fester and spread until it is finally overthrown by violent revolution. There is no better example of throwing out the baby with the bath water than overturning this horrible, ugly, piece of legislation by force. To be precise: Hillarycare II is the catalyst for violent revolution.

There is no predicting what else will be done in the name of a revolution started simply to get rid of one bad law. Let the bill stand and a free people are lost to socialism. Overturn the bill by revolution and the baby goes out with the bath water.

Ramming Hillarycare II down the country’s throat was only a prelude to Hussein unwittingly stoking the flames of revolt with machinations designed to save the healthcare bill. The Administration’s first move involves one part of the bill:

After months insisting that could be fixed, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finally acknowledged Friday she doesn't see how.

"Despite our best analytical efforts, I do not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time," Sebelius said in a letter to congressional leaders.

Note that Sebelius says “. . . at this time.” Clearly, they intend to implement CLASS at some future date.

Then there is the Mitt Romney connection:

Known as CLASS, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program was a long-standing priority of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

I know what Romney says now, but what was he saying when he and the late Ted Kennedy (1932 - 2009) were working together to pass Romney/Kennedycare in Massachusetts?

Here’s the link to article the above quotes came from:

Oct 15, 4:03 AM EDT
Health overhaul law suffers first major casualty
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-14-15-24-47

The more devious machination involves the Supreme Court; specifically Elena Kagan and recusal. Many Americans along with many in Congress are hoping the High Court will declare the entire healthcare bill unconstitutional. I just don’t see that happening with four avowed liberals on the Court. Those four need one other justice to side with them. The four would be reduced to three should Kagan recuse herself as the law requires.

Here’s the article in two parts covering the topic in great detail:

Judge Blocks Release of Recusal-Related Emails Kagan Sent WH—Says They're ‘Personal’
By Terence P. Jeffrey
October 14, 2011

(CNSNews.com) - U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, a Clinton appointee, has ruled that the Justice Department does not need to release emails Solicitor General Elena Kagan sent from her DOJ email account to people in the White House—in which she discussed her recusal decisions as solicitor general—because the emails were “used for a purely personal objective.”

CNSNews.com and Judicial Watch were seeking public release of the emails through lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The “purely personal objective” cited by the judge was Kagan’s goal of being confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.

At issue is whether Kagan must recuse herself as a Supreme Court Justice when the cases challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare reach the court.

Kagan was the Obama administration’s solicitor general—charged with defending the administration’s positions in federal court cases--at the time President Obama’s health-care plan was enacted and when Virginia and Florida filed lawsuits against that health-care plan in federal court.

Internal DOJ emails that CNSNews.com did obtain via FOIA revealed that in January 2010 Kagan had personally assigned her then-top deputy, Neal Katyal, to handle the anticipated lawsuits against Obama’s health-care plan. The emails also showed that Katyal at that time believed Kagan “definitely” wanted her office involved in the administration’s defense against those legal challenges.

Katyal later signed Justice Department briefs countering lawsuits filed against Obamacare and argued some of the cases in federal court.

Under federal law—28 U.S.C. 455—any “justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” The law further states that any justice “shall also disqualify himself … [w]here he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceedings or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”

In May 25, 2010, CNSNews.com filed a FOIA request with the Justice Department asking for any communications to or from then-Solicitor General Kagan, or records of any meeting she personally or electronically attended, that involved any of three things: 1) discussion of pending health-care legislation, 2) any legal challenge to the health-care bill signed by President Obama, and 3) any discussion of the question of whether Kagan ought to recuse herself from involvement in any particular case in her role as solicitor general due to the prospect that it might later come before were she confirmed to a seat on a federal court.

When the Justice Department failed to respond to CNSNews.com’s FOIA request by late November 2010, the Media Research Center (MRC), of which CNSNews.com is a division, filed suit against the department in federal court.

In a subsquent search of Kagan’s email files pursuant to CNSNews.com's FOIA request, the Justice Department found 8 documents that represented a chain of emails that had gone back and forth between Kagan and officials at the White House on May 17, 2010—a week after Obama had nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court.
In addition to Kagan herself, parties to the email chain included, among others, White House Counsel Robert Bauer; Ronald Klain, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff; and Joshua Earnest, a White House spokesman.

“These documents consist of an email exchange between Kagan, in her capacity as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court, and staff members of the Executive Office of the President,” the Justice Department said in a “Vaughn Index” it submitted to the federal court listing documents it was declining to release in response to CNSNews.com’s FOIA.

“The email exchange concerns drafting and revising a proposed answer Kagan might give to a possible question she might be asked, during the Senate confirmation process, about recusal decisions as Solicitor General,” the Justice Department told the court. “A review of the hearing record of Ms. Kagan’s confirmation by the U.S. Senate reveals that the question at issue in this email exchange was never asked or answered.”

The Justice Department argued that it did not have to release these emails because they were not “agency documents” but “personal” ones.

“The emails at issue here do not concern the ‘official duties’ of the OSG, but rather concern then-Solicitor General Kagan’s nomination to fill a seat on the United States Supreme Court,” the Justice Department told the court.

“Further,” the Justice Department said, “contrary to plaintiff MRC’s suggestion, emails SG Kagan sent or received concerning her nomination were not ‘created by the OSG’ but rather sent or received by SG Kagan in her personal capacity as a nominee to the Supreme Court rather as opposed to her official capacity as Solicitor General.”

Judge Huvelle agreed with the Justice Department that Solicitor General Kagan’s email to the White House “about recusal decisions as Solicitor General”—as DOJ had described the emails—were indeed personal and not governmental.

“However,” Judge Huvelle wrote in an opinion issued Thursday, “S.G. Kagan’s correspondence was not relied upon by the OSG in carrying out its business, but rather was used for a purely personal objective … As such, the relevant factors compel the conclusion that the withheld documents were personal, not attributable to the agency, and therefore were not ‘agency records.’”

Judge Huvelle also declined to require the Justice Department to unredact a portion of a Jan. 13, 2010 email exchange between a Justice Department lawyer—whose name is redacted from the email in question—and Neal Katyal, who at that time was Solicitor General Kagan’s chief deputy, and whom Kagan had assigned the week before to handle the issue of anticipated legal challenges to the president’s health care bill.

The email, sent by the unnamed lawyer to Katyal, described a meeting that took place that day among Justice Department lawyers to begin planning DOJ’s response to legal challenges to the as-yet-unenacted Obamacare law.

PART TWO:

The subject line on the email says: “RE: Health Care Defense.”

The email begins: “I attended the meeting today—Tom P [Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perelli] led it, and there were some folks from Civil, OLC, and Antitrust. The basic plan is to do some anticipatory thinking about claims that will be asserted and how we will defend against them. It turns out that Civil has already started this, and hopes to produce some model briefs or memos. The big areas of possible litigation are—”

Here the email that was released to CNSNews.com in response to its FOIA request is redacted with black ink blocking about two lines of text.

When the redaction ends, the email continues as follows: “The expectation is that a bill could pass and be signed by mid-February, so we could be in litigation soon after. There is the possibility of both well-financed, sophisticated challenges, as well as numerous pro se and frivolous claims.

“Ian G. [Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ian Gershengorn of the Civil Division] and [Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division] Tony West will make a recommendation to Tom on how to structure the process going forward, i.e., should there be weekly meetings, etc.,” the email continued. “I spoke to Ian afterwards and told him we would like to be involved and to please keep us in the loop.

“Please let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss,” the email concluded.

The Justice Department argued that the redacted section of this email should remain redacted because of the attorney work-product privilege. Judicial Watch, whose own lawsuit against DOJ seeking the further release of documents had been joined with the MRCs, argued that this privilege should not apply because at the time the email was written the health-care law itself had not yet been enacted let alone challenged in court.

Judge Huvelle rejected this argument, saying that the Justice Department lawyers who were involved in this email--at least one of whom worked under Kagan's supervision in the Office of Solicitor General—were, in effect, already involved in developing the legal defense for the health care law.

“JW’s argument fails as a matter of law. A specific claim is not in fact essential for an agency to properly invoke the attorney work-product privilege,” the judge wrote. “Rather, when government attorneys act as ‘legal advisers’ to an agency considering litigation that may arise from [sic] challenge to a government program, a specific claim is not required to justify the assertion of this privilege.”

“In such a situation, the privilege may be invoked if the agency documents were prepared ‘because of the prospect of litigation’ and by attorneys who ‘subjective[ly] belie[ved] that litigation was a real possibility, and that belief [was] objectively reasonable.’”

“In this case, DOJ has explained—and the unredacted material makes clear—that the emails, including the redacted material, discussed legal defense of the forthcoming health care legislation in response to an anticipated court challenge. … This is precisely the type of communication that is protected by the attorney-client work-product privilege.”

While this argument protects the Justice Department from unredacting the email in question, it may raise a renewed question about whether Justice Kagan needs to recuse herself from the Obamacare lawsuits. It is now stated in a federal court opinion that while Kagan was solicitor general, an email communication to which her top was party is protected by the attorney work-product privilege because it “discussed legal defense of the forthcoming health care legislation in response to an anticipated court challenge.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...heyre-personal

Originally Posted by Flanders

PART TWO:

The subject line on the email says: “RE: Health Care Defense.”

The email begins: “I attended the meeting today—Tom P [Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perelli] led it, and there were some folks from Civil, OLC, and Antitrust. The basic plan is to do some anticipatory thinking about claims that will be asserted and how we will defend against them. It turns out that Civil has already started this, and hopes to produce some model briefs or memos. The big areas of possible litigation are—”

Here the email that was released to CNSNews.com in response to its FOIA request is redacted with black ink blocking about two lines of text.

When the redaction ends, the email continues as follows: “The expectation is that a bill could pass and be signed by mid-February, so we could be in litigation soon after. There is the possibility of both well-financed, sophisticated challenges, as well as numerous pro se and frivolous claims.

“Ian G. [Deputy Assistant Attorney General Ian Gershengorn of the Civil Division] and [Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division] Tony West will make a recommendation to Tom on how to structure the process going forward, i.e., should there be weekly meetings, etc.,” the email continued. “I spoke to Ian afterwards and told him we would like to be involved and to please keep us in the loop.

“Please let me know if you have any questions or want to discuss,” the email concluded.

The Justice Department argued that the redacted section of this email should remain redacted because of the attorney work-product privilege. Judicial Watch, whose own lawsuit against DOJ seeking the further release of documents had been joined with the MRCs, argued that this privilege should not apply because at the time the email was written the health-care law itself had not yet been enacted let alone challenged in court.

Judge Huvelle rejected this argument, saying that the Justice Department lawyers who were involved in this email--at least one of whom worked under Kagan's supervision in the Office of Solicitor General—were, in effect, already involved in developing the legal defense for the health care law.

“JW’s argument fails as a matter of law. A specific claim is not in fact essential for an agency to properly invoke the attorney work-product privilege,” the judge wrote. “Rather, when government attorneys act as ‘legal advisers’ to an agency considering litigation that may arise from [sic] challenge to a government program, a specific claim is not required to justify the assertion of this privilege.”

“In such a situation, the privilege may be invoked if the agency documents were prepared ‘because of the prospect of litigation’ and by attorneys who ‘subjective[ly] belie[ved] that litigation was a real possibility, and that belief [was] objectively reasonable.’”

“In this case, DOJ has explained—and the unredacted material makes clear—that the emails, including the redacted material, discussed legal defense of the forthcoming health care legislation in response to an anticipated court challenge. … This is precisely the type of communication that is protected by the attorney-client work-product privilege.”

While this argument protects the Justice Department from unredacting the email in question, it may raise a renewed question about whether Justice Kagan needs to recuse herself from the Obamacare lawsuits. It is now stated in a federal court opinion that while Kagan was solicitor general, an email communication to which her top was party is protected by the attorney work-product privilege because it “discussed legal defense of the forthcoming health care legislation in response to an anticipated court challenge.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...heyre-personal

I think that most Americans would prefer to change things via the legal mechanism in place to do it peacefully. Is healthcare worth killing human lives over a difference of opinion? I should hope not. If, the majority of people feel that it should be changed, then it will; if not, then things will remain as they are. Of course there are the extemists on both sides of the fence, but the government will deal with them should it come down to that.

Originally Posted by gamewell45

I think that most Americans would prefer to change things via the legal mechanism in place to do it peacefully. Is healthcare worth killing human lives over a difference of opinion? I should hope not. If, the majority of people feel that it should be changed, then it will; if not, then things will remain as they are. Of course there are the extemists on both sides of the fence, but the government will deal with them should it come down to that.

I believe civil disobedience would do it..stop paying tax's and see how fast they get the picture...We are talking about changing our entire country, this should not be left up to a few politicians, especially with the way it was forced through..This is so huge it's a matter of what kind of country we are going to have in the future, and to be dictated to is just NOT acceptable.

Bend now and you will be TOLD to lay down later, and then real violence is a sure bet....


By the way, FORCING this on us IS violence in my opinion......

Originally Posted by gamewell45

I think that most Americans would prefer to change things via the legal mechanism in place to do it peacefully. Is healthcare worth killing human lives over a difference of opinion? I should hope not. If, the majority of people feel that it should be changed, then it will; if not, then things will remain as they are. Of course there are the extemists on both sides of the fence, but the government will deal with them should it come down to that.

To gamewell45: The majority did not want it to begin with. The arrogance Democrats displayed in ramming that bill through has only multiplied in the Administration’s efforts to thwart repeal and an adverse Supreme Court decision. Remember that repeal was an option at the time the bill was passed. In short: Once repeal is taken off the table revolt is the only option.

No one should pin their hopes on the Supreme Court.

Originally Posted by Iolo

What do right-wingers care about human life or countries? They are mad as hatters and think they are all Hitler.

To Iolo: flounder has it right: “. . . HITLER would be the one forcing this on you......”

Originally Posted by Flanders

[B]To gamewell45: The majority did not want it to begin with. The arrogance Democrats displayed in ramming that bill through has only multiplied in the Administration’s efforts to thwart repeal and an adverse Supreme Court decision. Remember that repeal was an option at the time the bill was passed. In short: Once repeal is taken off the table revolt is the only option.

Revolt will undoubtedly cause many deaths if violence is used. Are you prepared for people on both sides to die if violence occurs?

Originally Posted by gamewell45

Revolt will undoubtedly cause many deaths if violence is used. Are you prepared for people on both sides to die if violence occurs?

To gamewell45: At least as prepared to die for my freedom as Communists are prepared to die for totalitarian government.

This thread should give you a handle on why revolution might be the only course of action left to freedom-loving Americans:

http://www.politicalforum.com/electi...ty-center.html

Originally Posted by Flanders

To gamewell45: At least as prepared to die for my freedom as Communists are prepared to die for totalitarian government.

This thread should give you a handle on why revolution might be the only course of action left to freedom-loving Americans:

http://www.politicalforum.com/electi...ty-center.html

I read the thread and I have to agree with poster Kessy_Athena's assesment of your position. It is flawed and unrealistic; in particular her argument that "If you simply take without contributing to the systems that make them possible, then who's the parasite?" is most compelling to me and further cements my position that violence is an unnecessary part of change.

A vast majority of American people will not be willing to cause nor support a revolution to occur in our country. Only a minority of extremists would support a violent means to make change and the government at the behest of the people would not permit it to occur.

Originally Posted by gamewell45

I read the thread and I have to agree with poster Kessy_Athena's assesment of your position. It is flawed and unrealistic; in particular her argument that "If you simply take without contributing to the systems that make them possible, then who's the parasite?" is most compelling to me and further cements my position that violence is an unnecessary part of change.

To gamewell45: And my response was:

To Kessy_Athena: Parasites are the people who live on tax dollars when they should not be allowed anywhere near the public trough. Parasites are not to be confused with legitimate civil servants necessary in a limited government. Parasites can only absorb wealth through taxation; there is no other way for parasites to acquire wealth, or even acquire decent incomes without tax dollars. Of course, actually doing some useful work 5 days a week for those incomes is not part of the deal. Invariably, parasites advocate socialism/communism.

Furthermore, it was limited government and individual liberties combined with the Right to work for one’s self that gave Americans everything. Socialism/communism took from the producers and gave to the parasites. No private sector American has an obligation to support totalitarian government.

A vast majority of American people will not be willing to cause nor support a revolution to occur in our country.

To gamewell45: That’s your opinion. Nevertheless, it does not take a vast majority to carry out a successful revolution; especially with this on their side:

“All revolutions come from the middle class, and then only when something has been taken away from them. The poor do not have the organizational skills required to foment successful revolution —— the rich have no reason to revolt. People never start a revolution to get something, they always revolt to get something back.”

Big government Socialists/Communists took everything from private sector Americans, now, they want it all back —— peacefully if possible, by violent revolution if there is no other way.

Only a minority of extremists would support a violent means to make change

To gamewell45: Why is that violent Communists are called freedom fighters —— never extremists?

and the government at the behest of the people would not permit it to occur.

To gamewell45: The government stopped acting at the behest of the people a long time ago. So don’t count on anyone besides the parasite class defending the government. Mark Twain (1835 - 1910) said it best:

“Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it.”

Our present federal government, Democrats and Republicans alike, deserves nothing from the people, not loyalty, not labor, not respect.

My OP explores the possibility of revolution against big government being triggered by Hillarycare II. Compare that to the revolution being preached by admitted socialist agitators in a few cities.

NOTE: In spite of media coverage, the number of demonstrators is minute compared to the total population. Discount the usual number of sign-carriers who are easily manipulated and you are left with an infinitesimal number of hardcore communist organizers.

The enclosed article begins:

“This is WHAT democracy looks like,” chanted about 1,000 protesters as they plotted their Occupy Philadelphia strategy a couple of weeks ago.

Democracy fits those people like another layer of skin. The word ‘democracy’ is the new buzz word for Communists; replacing every other one-word slogan in the violent revolutionary’s handbook.

From the little I’ve read about the current crop of radicals their demonstrations are a call for violent revolution —— but only so long as violence is not done to them —— “them” means the organizers not the sign-carriers who, in addition to being fools, are nothing more than cannon fodder. Of course, they are also demonstrating to protect the parasite class’ spot at the public trough, while violence for the sake of violence is their first priority.

Posted: Saturday, October 15, 2011 6:30 pm
Are you really for revolution? FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake

“This is WHAT democracy looks like,” chanted about 1,000 protesters as they plotted their Occupy Philadelphia strategy a couple of weeks ago.

Not sure if they meant the mindless chanting, the threats of violence and intimidation, or the raucous anarchy of the street, but in any case, they are correct. This IS what democracy looks like, whether it is the democracy of the Occupy Wall Street movement, the democracy of Cairo during the Arab Spring, the democracy of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 or the democracy of 1789 during the French Revolution.

For those who are history challenged, let’s look beyond the slogans of these “democratic movements” and see what the result of such “popular” uprisings has been.

Since former comedian and now social activist Roseanne Barr has been promoting her faux presidential campaign recently by suggesting that bankers and other wealthy bastards should be beheaded, we should probably begin our historical survey with the granddaddy of all democracy movements — the French Revolution — which delivered the people’s judgment at the end of the sharp blade of a guillotine.

Supposedly inspired by the American Revolution, the French Revolution of 1789 led directly to the Reign of Terror of 1793-94 during which as many as 40,000 people were killed. Reflecting the Orwellian nature of language during revolutionary periods, these murders of French citizens were accomplished by the deceptively named Committee of Public Safety.

Speaking of the power of words to lull you to your death, there can be few examples more misleading than the slogan of the French Revolution. The failure of Robespierre and his fellow Jacobins to deliver either “liberty, equality or brotherhood” — as promised — should be all the proof you need that slogans can’t be trusted to protect human rights. What slogans do achieve is mobilizing the people on the street into a political force, and then manipulating that political force into a tool that can be used to agitate for social change. But the change that comes is never liberty; it is never equality; and it is certainly never brotherhood. Instead it is rage.

You can see the face of that rage on the streets in America now. The Occupy Wall Street movement is supposed to be about economic “justice” and fairness for the little guy. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really have anything to do with justice — it is just another case of the “have nots” taking what they “have not” earned from those who have.

The “justice” of that process is accomplished, by the way, not through courts or laws, but through brute force. Perhaps Ron Bloom — the Obama administration’s manufacturing czar — was thinking of street justice for Wall Street in 2009 when he said, “We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system... [and] we kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”

Guns are sometimes needed in revolutions, and sometimes not, but in either case, the revolution usually starts with slogans, followed by protests, and then may or may not advance to the gun stage depending on how much fear the protests can create through the power of intimidation.

The Russian Revolution (which coincidentally was another October Revolution) started out with slogans and protests, too, just like “Occupy Wall Street.” Of course, life in 1917 Petrograd was a lot harder and a lot more desperate than it is today in Philadelphia or New York — but the ruffians on the streets don’t care about that because they don’t study history. If they did, they might be more apt to follow the Russian example and overthrow Obama’s czars who have imposed absurd and unwieldy regulations on banking and business instead of trying to destroy the capitalists who actually have the capacity to create wealth — and jobs.

But the protesters don’t know anything they didn’t learn on Twitter. Revolutionary slogans fit nicely into the 140-character format of Twitter, and with the Internet they can spread just like the “prairie fire” that both Mao and 1960s revolutionary Bill Ayers used as their metaphor for grass-roots revolution.

But is there really anything “grass roots” about what is happening on Wall Street or in other urban areas across the country where thousands of protesters are gathering for their own version of the Greek riots? Heck no. Not unless you think “flash mobs” are really spontaneous outbreaks of crime and violence. They are not. They are the result of planning and networking. Social media and the Internet have made it possible for revolution to spread like “prairie fire” across the urban landscape, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t people and groups wielding matches who are directing the mob.

Which brings us to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya in 2011. The Arab Spring is more accurately called “Days of Rage” because its purpose was to channel anger into a weapon. Another word for this is rioting, and in case you wondered, yes rioting IS what democracy looks like.

That’s because democracy or “rule of the people” is not only heir to the flaw of “tyranny of the majority,” but also — and less frequently noted — “tyranny of the loud minority.” Democracy is about scaring other people off the street. One way to do that is to “occupy” the street with smelly, loud violent people who are willing to call other people names, shout them down and if necessary throw a punch at them or even behead them. That’s why our Founding Fathers rejected democracy, and instead instituted a constitutional republic where minorities are protected by the rule of law.

That’s also why it was always dangerous for Americans to wholeheartedly endorse the street movements in Cairo and Tunisia. Yes, we support the rights of people to govern themselves, but we need to recognize the extraordinary difference between the rule of the people through law and the rule of the mob through force.

The rule of law is the last thing that “democratic” movements are interested in; they want change, and they want it now. Ayers and his gang of radicals tried to use violent street protests in 1968 and 1969 to disrupt the rule of law in Chicago, and there is no reason to think the same tactic won’t be tried again in 2011 or 2012.

Listen for instance to the rhetoric of an unidentified Occupy L.A. speaker who discounts suggestions that “nonviolence” can bring about change.

“No, my friend. I’ll give you two examples: French Revolution, and Indian so-called Revolution. Gandhi, Gandhi today is, with respect to all of you, Gandhi today is a tumor that the ruling class is using constantly to mislead us. French Revolution made fundamental transformation. But it was bloody. India, the result of Gandhi, is 600 million people living in maximum poverty. So, ultimately, the bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!”

At this point in the speech, the crowd breaks out into cheers. (See it for yourself at [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlPY9AfQFqI"]Ultimately violence will be necessary, says Occupy L.A. speaker - Pt2 10/01/2011 - YouTube[/ame]). It is those cheers which should scare you, along with the fact that the national media and Nancy Pelosi are among those cheering.

Here’s the bottom line: Anyone who supports the America of the Founding Fathers and Martin Luther King cannot with good conscience also support a movement that advocates the violent overthrow of capitalism. If you cannot worship both God and Mammon, by the same token you cannot overthrow capitalism and leave liberty standing.

Yet there are literally hundreds of examples on the Internet of protesters in the Occupy Wall Street movement confirming that they are socialists and that they are violent. Anyone who supports them and is not also a socialist or pro-violence has lost the right to be taken seriously.

http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinio...cc4c03286.html