Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Valerie]

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

George Washington also lead another revolt, I think you may have heard of it, the American Revolution, then again maybe not.

Try reading for comprehension, numbskull.

I know this spoils all your militia fantasies and all, so I hate to break it to you... There's no right of revolution in a democracy!

 

[Colin]

No, he burned Rome himself when he lit the fire to try to make room for an expansion.

Yes, but perhaps you miss the analogy. Whingeing about due process for a foreign based terrorist who has publicly declared war against the USA and the West is laughable if not futile. Have you ANY idea how long it would take to bring shits like this to face due process? But hey, you continue to let your bleeding heart rule your head. Meanwhile those you seek to protect will continue to strive to kill you. Any rights this animal had were relinquished when he made Americans throughout the world a legitimate target for death. As I said in another thread, do you really believe the shit considered himself an American?

 

[Xchel]

we had 2 years...in fact, when he came to the US we RELEASED him...so tell me if he was a terrorist why did we do that? Shouldn't we have sent him to Gitmo? That would have resolved the problem....oh that is right we didn't have anything to charge him with..no evidence...just you tube stuff about him blathering..since when is speech suddenly forbidden because it is anti american?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

George Washington also lead another revolt, I think you may have heard of it, the American Revolution, then again maybe not.

Try reading for comprehension, numbskull.

I know this spoils all your militia fantasies and all, so I hate to break it to you... There's no right of revolution in a democracy!

FUCKWIT you do realize a democracy breeds tyrants? A democracy is majority rules over the minority. The majority can rule that a certain group of people have no rights.

One more time Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And George Washington would lead a revolt aginst the current form of government we have.

 

[Valerie]

we had 2 years...in fact, when he came to the US we RELEASED him...so tell me if he was a terrorist why did we do that? Shouldn't we have sent him to Gitmo? That would have resolved the problem....oh that is right we didn't have anything to charge him with..no evidence...just you tube stuff about him blathering..since when is speech suddenly forbidden because it is anti american?

He had his chance to come forward when his father had his lawsuit thrown out of court but he chose to remain an unlawful enemy combatant. He continued for years with his violent rhetoric directly threatening American innocents... Ultimately he had another chance in the end to turn himself in and again he made his choice and sealed his own fate.

The elite unit and army soldiers surrounded a village and tried to persuade local leaders to hand al-Awlaki over, a member of the unit told the paper.

"We stayed a whole week, but the villagers were supporting him," the counterterrorism officer, who is not authorized to speak on the record," told the Times. "The local people began firing on us, and we fired back, and while it was happening, they helped him to escape."

Official: Al-Awlaki's death will make al-Qaida afraid - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - msnbc.com

 

[Valerie]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

George Washington also lead another revolt, I think you may have heard of it, the American Revolution, then again maybe not.

Try reading for comprehension, numbskull.

I know this spoils all your militia fantasies and all, so I hate to break it to you... There's no right of revolution in a democracy!

FUCKWIT you do realize a democracy breeds tyrants? A democracy is majority rules over the minority. The majority can rule that a certain group of people have no rights.

One more time Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And George Washington would lead a revolt aginst the current form of government we have.

WRONG.



There is a powerful image in our collective consciousness: the Minutemen, armed with their own muskets, rushing to Concord Green and the North Bridge in Lexington to prevent British troops from seizing a militia arsenal at Concord. We assume the Founders enshrined this tradition -- a right of armed citizens to resist governmental oppression -- in our Constitution with the Second Amendment.

That assumption is wrong.

First, it overlooks a critical distinction. The Minutemen were not going to war with their own government. They were going to war with British forces. Yes, of course, the American colonies were part of the British Empire. But Americans increasingly had come to see British forces as a foreign army of occupation.

At the center of their thinking was the fact that the American colonies were unrepresented in Parliament. Whig ideology of the day -- widely accepted on both sides of the Atlantic -- was that no democratic government could become tyrannical over the people it represented. Americans believed that it was because they were unrepresented that Parliament had few qualms about imposing oppressive taxation on them. Their cry was, "No taxation without representation."

Second, the assumption overlooks history.

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.


Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.


The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.



The militia the Founders envisioned was not an adversary of government but an instrument of government, organized by Congress and subject to governmental authority. It was not a tool for insurrection but, as the Constitution itself states, a tool to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

 

[Valerie]

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Thomas Jefferson

George Washington also lead another revolt, I think you may have heard of it, the American Revolution, then again maybe not.

Try reading for comprehension, numbskull.

I know this spoils all your militia fantasies and all, so I hate to break it to you... There's no right of revolution in a democracy!

FUCKWIT you do realize a democracy breeds tyrants? A democracy is majority rules over the minority. The majority can rule that a certain group of people have no rights.

One more time Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And George Washington would lead a revolt aginst the current form of government we have.

What does the insurrectionist idea mean for us today?

Ideas have consequences. But the insurrectionist idea extends beyond debates about guns and the Second Amendment. It reinforces the image of the government and the people being at odds.

In a democracy, however, the government is the people's government. Of course, we did not all vote for whomever now sits in the White House and Congress. We are a large and vital democracy -- not a village of Stepford wives -- and there is much about which we disagree. The majority, moreover, can be wrong. Sometimes we are boiling mad, and with good reason.

And yet, if we are to preserve the Republic, we cannot see our own government as an enemy. That does not mean we should be a placid people.

We must be eternally vigilant about government errors and abuse. But we must recognize that differences of opinion are the normal order of things. In a constitutional democracy, we correct errors through constitutional means.

 

[Intense]

Actually We are a Federalist, Constitutional Republic.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Try reading for comprehension, numbskull.

I know this spoils all your militia fantasies and all, so I hate to break it to you... There's no right of revolution in a democracy!

FUCKWIT you do realize a democracy breeds tyrants? A democracy is majority rules over the minority. The majority can rule that a certain group of people have no rights.

One more time Thomas Jefferson

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

And George Washington would lead a revolt aginst the current form of government we have.

WRONG.



There is a powerful image in our collective consciousness: the Minutemen, armed with their own muskets, rushing to Concord Green and the North Bridge in Lexington to prevent British troops from seizing a militia arsenal at Concord. We assume the Founders enshrined this tradition -- a right of armed citizens to resist governmental oppression -- in our Constitution with the Second Amendment.

That assumption is wrong.

First, it overlooks a critical distinction. The Minutemen were not going to war with their own government. They were going to war with British forces. Yes, of course, the American colonies were part of the British Empire. But Americans increasingly had come to see British forces as a foreign army of occupation.

At the center of their thinking was the fact that the American colonies were unrepresented in Parliament. Whig ideology of the day -- widely accepted on both sides of the Atlantic -- was that no democratic government could become tyrannical over the people it represented. Americans believed that it was because they were unrepresented that Parliament had few qualms about imposing oppressive taxation on them. Their cry was, "No taxation without representation."

Second, the assumption overlooks history.

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice.


Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.


The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.



The militia the Founders envisioned was not an adversary of government but an instrument of government, organized by Congress and subject to governmental authority. It was not a tool for insurrection but, as the Constitution itself states, a tool to "suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

Wrong about what?
That a democracy breeds tryants?
That in a Democracy the majority rules and can bring back slavery or restrict the rights of the minority?
That George Washington Lead a revolt called the American Revolution?
That Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

So in a Democracy if the majority wants to revolt yes they can.

 

[Big Fitz]

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

 

[Valerie]

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

I never persecuted the Tea Party. Treason is treason and precedent matters.

 

[Intense]

This is a Non Violent Protest, not Armed Rebellion, Not Insurrection.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

I never persecuted the Tea Party. Treason is treason and precedent matters.

precedent matters? Yes it does when it fits your form of government let's just forget about everything else.

 

[Xchel]

This is a Non Violent Protest, not Armed Rebellion, Not Insurrection.

really is it? After all they are calling for taking up arms against the US government..that is after all what a revolution is...and they are calling for it.

This guy never took up arms against the government, he never was on a battlefield...we only know this that he was a propagandist..which is what the Wall STreet protesters also are...you are creating a slippery slope if it is allowed for one propagandist...what makes it wrong for another one?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where in the constitution does it say you sentence yourself to death? Would being a member of the Tea Party or one of those other batty groups also be justification for being on a hit list?

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's

 

[Intense]

This is a Non Violent Protest, not Armed Rebellion, Not Insurrection.

really is it? After all they are calling for taking up arms against the US government..that is after all what a revolution is...and they are calling for it.

This guy never took up arms against the government, he never was on a battlefield...we only know this that he was a propagandist..which is what the Wall STreet protesters also are...you are creating a slippery slope if it is allowed for one propagandist...what makes it wrong for another one?

Link on the Wall Street Protest calling for Insurrection? ..... Pretty Please? ......

 

[Intense]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's

 

[Big Fitz]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

I never persecuted the Tea Party. Treason is treason and precedent matters.

Remember that. The Tea Party is demanding a redress of grievances as provided in the First Amendment.

Cornell West, code pink, Trumka, and much of the activist left are demanding violent revolution to replace the government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's

What I meant to say was he would have been tried and convicted of treason using Fizt historical examples

 

[Big Fitz]

How did the Founders react when Americans took up arms -- not against the Redcoats -- but against their own government? That happened twice. In Shays' Rebellion in 1786, small farmers and shop owners in western Massachusetts, armed with muskets and angry that the courts were foreclosing on their property to satisfy their debts, forcibly closed the courts and threatened to march on Boston.

In the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794, farmers in Pennsylvania and Kentucky took up muskets and threatened government officials who were charged with collecting taxes on whiskey.

Madison called Shays' Rebellion treason. The governor of Massachusetts raised an army to crush the rebellion -- an action endorsed by George Washington, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and John Marshall.

Eight years later, during the Whiskey Rebellion, George Washington said that permitting citizens to take up arms against the government would bring an "end to our Constitution and laws," and he personally led troops to extinguish the rebellion.

The Founders understood that if our Republic is to survive, the people had to understand that the government was now their government.

Do US Citizens Have the Right to Revolt?

There's no right of revolution in a democracy - CNN

You realize that by citing Washington as a reason to stop rebellion, the military should be taking up arms against the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd and idiots like Cornell West screaming for violent revolution. Michael Moore would be shut down and have to stay in France or Cuba or some other socialist nation of his choice with no extradition with the US as an enemy of the state.

We could even bring back the Wilson Era Sedition act where he would be arrested and thrown into prison with a possible charge of life in prison or death.

You sure you want to use this precedent to persecute the Tea Party? Don't look now, but your buddies if not yourself will be swept up too.

MLK jr would have been thrown in prison for his leadership in the marches of the 60's

He preached non violence and a change in government through the system. Malcolm X preached violence.

By the Washington "Precedent", MLK would have been left alone while Malcolm X would have been imprisoned.