New TEA Partier Here

[Darlene]

I know its not "law" but its the philosophy that has been lost throughout time, allowing the government to become too powerful and turn on its people.

no. again treason was and is against the law.

try reading the constitution.

And what if the government is guilty of treason? Are the people just supposed to roll over and let the government walk all over them? Nope. That's why we have certain rights and duties.
Definition of treason (n)
Bing Dictionary

• trea·son
• [ tréez'n ]

1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
2. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
3. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty

jeeze... please don't respond to me again. government CAN'T be treasonous.

dismissed.

have a good stay on the boards.

Are you really that ignorant to believe the government can't commit treason? You really are brainwashed.
Is Barack Obama guilty of TREASON - Tea Party Tribune - Tea Party Tribune
Is Obama Guilty of Treason

Constitutional Law Professor Says Obama Guilty of Treason

 

[LiberalMedia]

The changes we need are so far past being made by politicians it's disgusting. People with rifles change the things we need to change.

Are you aware that it is a crime to advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. government?

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

18 U.S. Code 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government LII Legal Information Institute

99.9% of humans don't deserve Freedom.

And you're one of them. Have fun in prison, insurgent.

Only the violent overthrow of the government is forbidden

This is the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence:

Preamble Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[78]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Read that again, systyr. It qualifies the whole "abolish the government" thing with the condition: whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends. As in, until the government habitually seeks to act without the consent of the governed and purposefully, blatantly violates the pyyple's inalienable ryghts, it does not merit being abolished.

Our government does not fulfill the requirements to legally justify such actions, therefore taking them at this point in time would be to incite insurrection, which, again, is illegal.

 

[Statistikhengst]

lol

thyt wys vyry wyndyrfyl yf yyy!!

 

[LiberalMedia]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

false.

treason is the only criminal act defined in the constitution.

and for the record, the Declaration of Independence isn't law.

I'm feeling a bit dyslexic today and am having trouble reading something on the government website for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, located here.

It says "Browse the United States Code" in bold, and I understand what that means.

Then it says "Front Matter"; no problems there.

But then there are two lines after that which I just can't seem to decipher, followed by "Articles of Confederation - 1777", "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government", and a few other documents.

Can you explain to me what those two mysterious lines are? Could you maybe post the text of them here? Perhaps seeing it in USMB's typeface will help.

what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?

good luck.

Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?

 

[jillian]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

false.

treason is the only criminal act defined in the constitution.

and for the record, the Declaration of Independence isn't law.

I'm feeling a bit dyslexic today and am having trouble reading something on the government website for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, located here.

It says "Browse the United States Code" in bold, and I understand what that means.

Then it says "Front Matter"; no problems there.

But then there are two lines after that which I just can't seem to decipher, followed by "Articles of Confederation - 1777", "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government", and a few other documents.

Can you explain to me what those two mysterious lines are? Could you maybe post the text of them here? Perhaps seeing it in USMB's typeface will help.

what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?

good luck.

Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?

that's nice. again... nothing in the declaration is enforceable as law.

she's making things up. you of course are all het up about it because she's a teatard, but have at it.

 

[Darlene]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

false.

treason is the only criminal act defined in the constitution.

and for the record, the Declaration of Independence isn't law.

I'm feeling a bit dyslexic today and am having trouble reading something on the government website for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, located here.

It says "Browse the United States Code" in bold, and I understand what that means.

Then it says "Front Matter"; no problems there.

But then there are two lines after that which I just can't seem to decipher, followed by "Articles of Confederation - 1777", "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government", and a few other documents.

Can you explain to me what those two mysterious lines are? Could you maybe post the text of them here? Perhaps seeing it in USMB's typeface will help.

what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?

good luck.

Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?

The Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence are also for decoration, according to @jillian.
It's kind of pathetic, really, to know that someone thinks the government is incapable of doing any wrong against its people--especially when there are millions of people who say otherwise.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm new to the boards but not new to the TEA Party. I volunteered for Mitt Romney in 2012 and will do so again when he runs in 2016. I hope I can get to know my fellow patriots here.

Have you been called a racist yet? If not you will be.

only if he's a racist.

Since when does that matter to the far lefties who throw the racist label around so freely ?

 

[LiberalMedia]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

false.

treason is the only criminal act defined in the constitution.

and for the record, the Declaration of Independence isn't law.

I'm feeling a bit dyslexic today and am having trouble reading something on the government website for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, located here.

It says "Browse the United States Code" in bold, and I understand what that means.

Then it says "Front Matter"; no problems there.

But then there are two lines after that which I just can't seem to decipher, followed by "Articles of Confederation - 1777", "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government", and a few other documents.

Can you explain to me what those two mysterious lines are? Could you maybe post the text of them here? Perhaps seeing it in USMB's typeface will help.

what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?

good luck.

Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?

that's nice. again... nothing in the declaration is enforceable as law.

she's making things up. you of course are all het up about it because she's a teatard, but have at it.

I agree with you. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence is enforceable as law, including the establishment of the new government.

That is your position, correct? Have I learned wrong? I'm genuinely asking. I'm here to learn, not pontificate. Such is the nature of enlightened lybyryls.

 

[jillian]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

false.

treason is the only criminal act defined in the constitution.

and for the record, the Declaration of Independence isn't law.

I'm feeling a bit dyslexic today and am having trouble reading something on the government website for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, located here.

It says "Browse the United States Code" in bold, and I understand what that means.

Then it says "Front Matter"; no problems there.

But then there are two lines after that which I just can't seem to decipher, followed by "Articles of Confederation - 1777", "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government", and a few other documents.

Can you explain to me what those two mysterious lines are? Could you maybe post the text of them here? Perhaps seeing it in USMB's typeface will help.

what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?

good luck.

Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?

that's nice. again... nothing in the declaration is enforceable as law.

she's making things up. you of course are all het up about it because she's a teatard, but have at it.

I agree with you. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence is enforceable as law, including the establishment of the new government.

That is your position, correct? Have I learned wrong? I'm genuinely asking. I'm here to learn, not pontificate. Such is the nature of enlightened lybyryls.

but the constitution IS enforceable. so your point?

you don't "learn" anything when you're intentionally misrepresenting and making up what people say.

typical teatards.

 

[Darlene]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

false.

treason is the only criminal act defined in the constitution.

and for the record, the Declaration of Independence isn't law.

I'm feeling a bit dyslexic today and am having trouble reading something on the government website for the Office of the Law Revision Counsel, located here.

It says "Browse the United States Code" in bold, and I understand what that means.

Then it says "Front Matter"; no problems there.

But then there are two lines after that which I just can't seem to decipher, followed by "Articles of Confederation - 1777", "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government", and a few other documents.

Can you explain to me what those two mysterious lines are? Could you maybe post the text of them here? Perhaps seeing it in USMB's typeface will help.

what's confusing to you? an inability to discern what is law and what is simply an historic document?

good luck.

Is that what they are? My mistake; thank you for clearing that up. The U.S. Constitution is "simply an historic document". That must be what the term "organic law" means, right?

that's nice. again... nothing in the declaration is enforceable as law.

she's making things up. you of course are all het up about it because she's a teatard, but have at it.

I agree with you. Nothing in the Declaration of Independence is enforceable as law, including the establishment of the new government.

That is your position, correct? Have I learned wrong? I'm genuinely asking. I'm here to learn, not pontificate. Such is the nature of enlightened lybyryls.

but the constitution IS enforceable. so your point?

you don't "learn" anything when you're intentionally misrepresenting and making up what people say.

typical teatards.

Yes, name-calling makes you sound much more intelligent than the rest of us. It shows that you are mature enough to handle an opposing view. NOT!

 

[Statistikhengst]

This thread could possibly become legendary...

 

[dblack]

I'd still like to hear from the OP on what the TP is all about these days. I'm an old school libertarian, an on-gain, off-again Ron Paul supporter, and I saw the original Tea Parties morph into an astroturfed re-branding of redneck Republicans. I'd like to think there's still a seed of the real, limited-government ethos that started the whole thing. But I admit I have my doubts.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I too am a member of the Tea Party. But while you're here on this forum, be prepared for being accused of being WORSE than ISIS by the more left leaning members of the board. Also be prepared for nearly daily postings regarding the death of the Tea Party. Or the fact that the Tea Party is a finely crafted national web of deceit, lies and literal terrorism, stretching from Maine to California. It's really, really very amusing to read.

Welcome to the board...

 

[Oldstyle]

Welcome. Try not to link from drudge too much.

Drudge Report is a good source for information, is it not liked here? Do you have something better?

Libs get their news from the Colbert Report and the Daily Show

only in rightwingnutworld, honey. but they probably are more reliable than anything on fake news.

Oh, right, I forgot to mention Randi Rhodes

really? that would be interesting. no doubt you can tell me where I get my news, hon.

Oh you're a NYTimes reader

NPR
BBC
NY Times (should I be embarrassed about that? the right loved the times when they did baby bush's bidding in the run-up to the Iraq war).
Jerusalem Post

I could go on.

oh... to save you the trouble... never fake news. I don't believe in being intentionally misinformed.

You don't believe in being intentionally misinformed yet you read the Times who have admitted that they are liberally biased? Hmmmm....

when did I say the times is liberally biased?

I said they did baby bush's bidding. or have you forgotten judy miller's propaganda with the false intel about WMD's in Iraq.

I do like how you ignore the other things I read. the times is only one. and intelligent people generally recognize it to be the paper of record.

oh right.

You didn't say the Times was liberally biased, Jillian...the Times themselves admitted that they were.

It's sad, Jillian that at one point The New York Times WAS the paper of record but that's a time that has passed. The Times traded it's reputation for journalism to support the liberal agenda of the people who ran it.
As for the "other" things you read? Do you really not know that NPR also has a liberal slant?

the times is still the paper of record. but i'm not going to have that debate with you since your idea of journalism is fake news.

you're also still ignoring the fact that i noted a cross-section of sources because you're only interested in railing againsg the new York times.

btw, if you weren't doing the rightwnignut thing and actually asked me my thoughts, i'd have told you that there is a lot in the times' editorial policy with which i disagree.

but you didn't ask because you aren't really interested. you're only interested in doing the winger dance.

I'm sorry, Jillian but these days The New York Times is only "the paper of record" for liberals! It stopped being anything like that for moderates and conservatives quite some time ago because it decided it's place was to interpret the news from a liberal perspective rather than just report it objectively. That's not me "railing" against the Times...it's simply me pointing out what the Times themselves have admitted.

I didn't ignore anything that you noted. I posted back to you that anyone who thinks NPR doesn't have a liberal bias is wearing blinders. I don't have the faintest idea what the Jerusalem newspaper you quoted is having never read it so I didn't comment on that at all. I find most of the BBC's work to be credible.

 

[OnePercenter]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

'You people.' That's very telling.

 

[OnePercenter]

the times is still the paper of record. but i'm not going to have that debate with you since your idea of journalism is fake news.

you're also still ignoring the fact that i noted a cross-section of sources because you're only interested in railing againsg the new York times.

btw, if you weren't doing the rightwnignut thing and actually asked me my thoughts, i'd have told you that there is a lot in the times' editorial policy with which i disagree.

but you didn't ask because you aren't really interested. you're only interested in doing the winger dance.

No reason to write so much. Simply ask them to refute the argument.....they can't.

 

[Oldstyle]

You people are wrong when you say its against the law to overthrow the government. Read the Preamble of The Declaration of Independence.

'You people.' That's very telling.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann Saturday Night Live - Yahoo Screen

Seriously?

 

[skookerasbil]

Welcome aboard my friend......place has high entertainment value if you love making fun of hyper-lefty k00ks. Place is loaded with 'em.......but to be honest, this place would suck without them.

Enjoy

 

[RKMBrown]

Since when have Tea Partiers cared about the rule of law or the Constitution?

Sure wish we had negs back. You're a lying POS.

 

[OnePercenter]

Countdown with Keith Olbermann Saturday Night Live - Yahoo Screen

Seriously?

"Jew Down"
"You People"
"Gypped"
"The itis"
"Uppity"
"Peanut gallery"
"Paddy wagons"
"Bugger"
"Hooligan"
"Sold down the river"
"Rule of thumb"

Are all racist or sexist. I don't live in the gutter, so I don't use any.