Posted on 04/21/2014 6:04:57 AM PDT by rktman
When I was a kid – when things got testy as to what was allowed or not – the immediate response, shouted with the arrogance that only a 10 year old could summon, was, “It’s a free country, ain’t it?!”
It was the perfect response and at that time, it was true. It was a free country. We had the right to speak our mind without worrying about what we know now as the “PC police.”
Yeah, it was a free country. Today, not so.
Today, we live in a world when a 5-year-old who uses his hand to simulate a gun faces expulsion.
Today, a 10-year-old who fights back against a bully faces expulsion.
What ever happened to self-defense?
What ever happened to teaching the bully a lesson rather than him becoming a hero of sorts and the victim is the bad guy?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Bttt
"In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act 'intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act'."
So, according to that UN definition, we had two sets of terrorists facing off at each other. Both groups were composed of (arguably) non-combatants, both threatened death or bodily harm, members of one group actually caused bodily harm to a citizen (tazaring) under reportedly questionable circumstances. (I wasn't there, so I don't know for a fact that's the case.)
Isn't the military-style arming of our police a form of intimidation?
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005
“There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).”
“The FBI further describes terrorism as either domestic or international . . . :”
“Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Under these definitions, the Bundy Ranch supporters are “domestic terrorists”, and BLM is not. The actions taken in support of the ranch were unlawful, they were taken specifically to intimidate or coerce a government in furtherance of political or social objectives, and the definition does not take other factors or motives into account. I’m more than a little curious when this definition was written.
As for BLM, their actions were in accordance with the law, regardless of how political and unequal the enforcement of that law may be, so their actions cannot be terrorism under the current FedGov definition. Personally, I don’t see either side as terrorist. Bundy supporters are resisting what a reasonable person could easily see as illegitimate and politicized government actions, which disqualifies their actions from the category “terrorism” in the minds of sensible people. BLM and the entire Obama Administration may be thugs, and they may be approaching tyranny, but again “terrorism” is not the appropriate word for their abuses of power. We need to insist that words be used properly.
Note: “Treason” is another commonly misused word. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2381 18 U.S. Code § 2381
- Treason
- “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death . . .”
I will never use the word “treason” to describe Obama because the first seven words make him immune from that overused charge - although any real American acting as he does would be guilty.
It’s “We the People” not “We the elite government royalty”.
Interesting contrast between the UN definition (your post 4), and the US definition (my post 5). Under US definitions, a lawful action cannot be terrorism.
I’d rather be wrong with Clive Bundy than right with Harry Reid.
It is my understanding that the military is not allowed to take up arms against Americans. It is also my understanding that - until the FBI was invented to fight organized crime, no Federal agent could take up arms against Americans. Crime was a local matter to be handled by local authorities. The Sheriff was in charge.
Sounds like a good system to me.
The only terrorists there were the armed government agents who engaged in an act ‘intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population... to do or abstain from doing any act’.
The fact is the civilians were doing “acts” they had been doing since the 1800’s. Self-defense by default cannot be terrorism.
There were 14 deaths at Fort Hood, as one of the victims was pregnant. However, those are some great and powerful images.
Harry POS Reid and his crony-socialist cohorts are economic terrorists.
Socialism Is Legal Plunder - The Law; Bastiat
BIG GOVERNMENT IS CRONY SOCIALISM
CONFISCATE the assets of Harry POS Reid, HIS family, HIS children, HIS grandchildren, HIS great grandchildren…and same of HIS CRONY SOCIALISTS
Will the IRS, NSA, BLM, FBI check every detail of his CORRUPT life?
Domestic economic TERRORISTS.
See something, say something ALERT!
FUHarryReid
Your argument is garbage. The fact is the population has been doing its acts since the 1800’s and the armed federal agents were involved in the “use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce...the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
The Political objective was Harry Reid’s land grab for the Chinese. The Govt use of force was not legal here under several avenues not the least is that they did not have the sheriff with them.
Isn't is strange how much the insertion of a single word in the Code makes it vary from the intent?
The Constitutional provision says nothing about Allegiance:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies.
So there is nothing to prevent a State from bringing charges of treason.....not that it would ever happen. The Pubbies are too busy wetting themselves over the color of his skin.
I love Barbara Simpson.
bump
What this episode has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt is that Reid has lost his marbles.
Calling Americans "Domestic Terrorists" in this situation is prima facie evidence of senility.
Reid has committed political suicide, and every day he remains in office is a plus for the right.
An issue is the legality of the Federal Government’s actions with the use of force and threats of force. There are several arguments that their actions were not legal not the least of which was they were acting without the Sheriff.
If they had no legal authority to be there armed and using the threat of deadly force against the population (just being government is not sufficient; See John BadEagle vs US, et al.) then their actions could technically fall under acts of terrorism.
when Reid said “I repeat: these people are domestic terrorists” that was the signal for all the rest of the RAT politicians and strategists to go out and repeat those words “domestic terrorist” as often as possible.
I don’t watch TV news anymore. Has it worked? Are the rest of the RATs reinforcing the “domestic terrorist” meme for Harry?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.