Sanctuary Cities and States Are the Same as the Civil War Era Confederacy. Open Rebellion Is Not Protest or Dissent.

[hadit]

I'm struggling a bit here. I agree with your OP that the following is anti-American, insurrectionist, what enemies of the state do:

"1. If you obstruct, prevent, or physically assault Law Enforcement and prevent them from doing their Lawful job you are not a protester. You are the same as a Confederate Rebel.

2. If you refuse to honor a legal warrant, court order, or detainer for a criminal illegal alien you are not protesting or dissenting. You are in open rebellion against the United States.

3. If you are burning cities, throwing rocks are bricks at Law Enforcement, or illegally blocking public roads, that is not peaceful protest or dissent. It is rebellion against the United States. You are an insurrectionist and a Rebel. You are not a patriot. You are the exact opposite."

Any who condone violence against LEOs or other acts of violence against American citizens for political purpose and/or opposes a law just because they don't like it or those who legally pass it are enemies of the state.

Those who do that are vile, unAmerican. Ditto for those who condone/defend/promote that.

What I am struggling with is whether South Carolina who first peacefully seceded from the Union followed by the other southern states of the Confederacy were the same as that. Even the battle of Fort Sumter in which South Carolina defended its own territory was a bloodless battle.

I have always believed those southern states wanted neither war nor violence of any kind. They just wanted the right to determine their own destiny and leave the rest of the USA to determine its own destiny. That is what I saw in the original revolutionaries who rejected the British government. Comparing the seceding southern states to those revolutionaries is a closer analogy I think than comparing the the southern states to the leftist/Marxist minded domestic terrorists described in the OP.

That in fact would make a good debate topic.

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers were insurrectionists against the British government. The fact that we hold them up as noble men of high character while damning the leaders of the Southern states as the worst people to have walked the earth is telling and reveals the honest truth, which is that the victors write the history books. Had we lost the revolution, the FF's would have been hanged as traitors and we would still be taught that about them today. Had the Southern states won the Civil War, we would be taught that they were principled heroes.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I'm struggling a bit here. I agree with your OP that the following is anti-American, insurrectionist, what enemies of the state do:

"1. If you obstruct, prevent, or physically assault Law Enforcement and prevent them from doing their Lawful job you are not a protester. You are the same as a Confederate Rebel.

2. If you refuse to honor a legal warrant, court order, or detainer for a criminal illegal alien you are not protesting or dissenting. You are in open rebellion against the United States.

3. If you are burning cities, throwing rocks are bricks at Law Enforcement, or illegally blocking public roads, that is not peaceful protest or dissent. It is rebellion against the United States. You are an insurrectionist and a Rebel. You are not a patriot. You are the exact opposite."

Any who condone violence against LEOs or other acts of violence against American citizens for political purpose and/or opposes a law just because they don't like it or those who legally pass it are enemies of the state.

Those who do that are vile, unAmerican. Ditto for those who condone/defend/promote that.

What I am struggling with is whether South Carolina who first peacefully seceded from the Union followed by the other southern states of the Confederacy were the same as that. Even the battle of Fort Sumter in which South Carolina defended its own territory was a bloodless battle.

I have always believed those southern states wanted neither war nor violence of any kind. They just wanted the right to determine their own destiny and leave the rest of the USA to determine its own destiny. That is what I saw in the original revolutionaries who rejected the British government. Comparing the seceding southern states to those revolutionaries is a closer analogy I think than comparing the the southern states to the leftist/Marxist minded domestic terrorists described in the OP.

That in fact would make a good debate topic.

The South was actively resisting the Federal Government in the 3-4 year lead up to the Civil War. In a sense, it was a rebellion, just not quite the open war it became. We are in the same situation now. Dim politicians are actively encouraging rebellion against existing Federal Law and Law Enforcement. It is not protest, it is defiant rebellion, and yes, there is a huge difference.

 

[WelfareQueen]

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers were insurrectionists against the British government. The fact that we hold them up as noble men of high character while damning the leaders of the Southern states as the worst people to have walked the earth is telling and reveals the honest truth, which is that the victors write the history books. Had we lost the revolution, the FF's would have been hanged as traitors and we would still be taught that about them today. Had the Southern states won the Civil War, we would be taught that they were principled heroes.

The Founders did not have representation in the British Parliament even though they were British citizens. It is in no way the same situation.

American citizens have representation. If you do not like Federal Immigration Law, petition your Congressman. Vote. Go through the appropriate legal channels.

Attacking Federal Law enforcement is an insurrection, not legitimate protest.

 

[Foxfyre]

The South was actively resisting the Federal Government in the 3-4 year lead up to the Civil War. In a sense, it was a rebellion, just not quite the open war it became. We are in the same situation now. Dim politicians are actively encouraging rebellion against existing Federal Law and Law Enforcement. It is not protest, it is defiant rebellion, and yes, there is a huge difference.

From the text of the Declaration of Independence (emphasis mine.)
". . .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. . ."

Text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
"Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Neither the Founders nor the secessionists chose to abolish either the British or American government. But both objected to oppressive taxation. Even a tea tax they might have accepted from their own representatives but not from Parliament where they had no representation. And yes, the seceding southern states pushed back hard on a system that put 75% of federal taxes paid on them as well as other laws they believed violated the constitutional principles of state's rights. Their protests however, while constitutionally protected, did not involved acts of domestic terrorism or any other violence that the modern U.S. left is now using. They just wanted to be able to determine their own destiny. Their ultimate protest--secession--was initially done peacefully and I believe would have remained peaceful if the North had not forced them into war.

There is ZERO constitutional or any other legal justification for the acts of domestic terrorism, arson, vandalism, breaking and entering, assault and battery, blocking streets, roads, bridges, endangering the general public etc. that current leftists in the U.S. utilize to get their way. I suspect in most cases it is because truly evil people will use any excuse to behave that way and/or to promote, condone, defend it.

Again it is a valid debate whether U.S. States have or should have the right to secede. But that I just can't see as the same thing as domestic terrorism, violence, pure evil by people who demand their way or they'll hurt you

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no doubt that the Founding Fathers were insurrectionists against the British government. The fact that we hold them up as noble men of high character while damning the leaders of the Southern states as the worst people to have walked the earth is telling and reveals the honest truth, which is that the victors write the history books. Had we lost the revolution, the FF's would have been hanged as traitors and we would still be taught that about them today. Had the Southern states won the Civil War, we would be taught that they were principled heroes.

Maybe. There are all kinds of moral and political theories in play in both scenarios, any of which would make great debate topics.

One for instance would be whether the Founding Fathers were correct that there are God given unalienable rights and when a government violates those rights the people have a right to abolish or reject that government and establish a better one. The Declaration spelled out the injustices imposed on the colonies by George III as their justification for withdrawing from the British Empire.

Another would be whether a majority of states taking unfair tax or other advantage of a minority of the states would be a violation of a guarantee of states rights or other violation justifying those states removing themselves from the union. Each state spelled out the injustices--injustices they had already petitioned the U.S. government to remedy-- imposed on it by the U.S. government as its justification to leave the union.

How would I see it if states seceded from the USA now? I don't know. Would depend on what dynamics were at play and how state and federal resources would factor in.

Was the Boston Tea Party domestic terrorism in the same way leftists terrorize citizens how? Another good topic for debate. Was stopping the federal government from reinforcing Fort Sumter on South Carolina territory domestic terrorism in the same way leftists terrorize citizens now? Another good topic for debate.

But the real debate is there any justification for blocking roads, streets, bridges, access to legitimate businesses? Justification for arson, vandalism, assault, battery, other domestic terrorism?

Again I don't see either the Revolution or the secession as the same thing as that.

 

[kyzr]

Protest ICE or get a job, the freebies are over.

Trump announces sanctuary cities and states will lose federal funds on Feb. 1

President Trump said Tuesday that he’s preparing to halt federal funding to sanctuary cities and states on February 1 — potentially yanking billions in revenue in response to laws barring coo…

nypost.com

 

[BrokeLoser]

You carry around your papers with you? Got your birth certificate in your wallet? Probably need your parents as well if we revoke birthright citizenship. I mean is that the nation you want to live in, officers can stop you, demand you PROVE you are here legally. I am sorry, but it don't work that way.

And if you are not? Seems to me ICE can still stop you, demand you PROVE you are a legal resident, no matter if you are here on a Visa or if you are a legal citizen. Again, do you carry your papers with you? I mean I carry my driver's license, that is certainly not proof of citizenship.

It seems like only yesterday the purple hair nose ringers were super excited about forcing people to carry around a VAX card.

 

[Winston]

It seems like only yesterday the purple hair nose ringers were super excited about forcing people to carry around a VAX card.

Did they advocate for people to be arrested, incarcerated, and even deported for not having one? Uh, no. STFU.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Did they advocate for people to be arrested, incarcerated, and even deported for not having one? Uh, no. STFU.

.

Yes.







.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You are a ******* idiot.

Just one very local example.

"I'm getting sick and tired of people who are unvaccinated. I wish them to all die and also to bypass the hospitals. Die at home."--Penelope, Jan 18th 2022

 

[hadit]

Did they advocate for people to be arrested, incarcerated, and even deported for not having one? Uh, no. STFU.

Yes, and some were on this board. Did you not notice?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Yes, and some were on this board. Did you not notice?

.

The one I quoted two posts up wanted us all dead.

She's no longer here.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........

.