ACTION

Fellow Brainers - Now you know that we love a good argument here! You know that we love debate, we really enjoy having other points of view posted so that we can engage in a dialogue with them. We do not espouse name-calling, aside from fun jabs at a politician or political group in general, nor do we espouse any action that would in any way hinder any of the rights we have in this great nation. We here at Conservative Brainworks do not espouse violence. What we do support is the Constitution and the civil liberties that we as Americans have. That being said I have a disturbing post that I just had to share this with you on this page. This is a sentiment from a person who, admittedly, is a dyed in the wool liberal. Now, normally, I have fun little arguments with this person and we each present our viewpoints and, at least on my side, I laugh it off and realize that this is just for fun and that taking things personally or OVER the top is… Well it’s just stupid so I turn off the computer and join the real world. Now, you all know the rules! Here at Conservative Brainworks we DO NOT; 1. Do personal attacks on anyone who is not a politician (and even then we back it up with annoying little things like facts, video, audio, transcripts, etc.) and we keep it political. 2. Espouse violence upon anyone, ever, outside of the realm of military engagements. 3. Go above and beyond the Constitution of the United States of America, nor do we go above and beyond the rule of law in America - we often disagree with the way laws are interpreted and carried out, and we can have dialogue on that all day long. 4. Think that we are better than anyone else, we are all law-abiding citizens, we are all American citizens, and we are all patriots. Now I want you to read what this person said: “Clive Bundy is a Terrorist. A home grown, bigoted & racist terrorist. He should be arrested and his property and holding seized. Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” My good friends, this is the mind of the low information liberal voter. What we see here is a knee-jerk and gut reaction to an admittedly biased news report using only emotion and little to nothing else. What we see here is not the rule of law as one would expect from a liberal. Rather, what we are seeing more and more of from the left are things that are conflictingly and diametrically opposed to the tenants that they tell us they hold so dear. The left tells us about tolerance, yet if you oppose their viewpoints and attempt a dialogue, tolerance is the very last thing that you will find they actually have - as is evidenced here. So let’s look at this posting, but let’s look at it with tolerance in our hearts, and logic in our minds. We are not going to simply look at this and begin bashing this person and telling this person anything aside from rule of law, common sense, liberty, freedom, and constitutionally based ideals. This person made a very unconfirmed and un-researched comment that Clive Bundy is a terrorist. Now I want you to look at the word terrorist there: Terrorist – with a capital T. Now this person made this statement as if Clive Bundy had been accused, and charged, with our rule of law, as a terrorist – he has not. So you see just stating that an American citizen is a terrorist does not a terrorist make. Let’s look at the next part of the statement, “a home-grown, bigoted & racist terrorist.” Now this time the word terrorist was not capitalized, however we are given other words in here like bigoted and racist oh, but wait, the word terrorist is at the end of that sentence also. So now this person has not only taken rule of law upon themselves and have charged Mr. Bundy with terrorism they are now, due to their apparent innate, in-depth, and all-encompassing knowledge of the situation calling him a bigot and a racist. Now I have seen what Mr. Bundy stated on the video, the raw video is very telling. If you look at the video that was already edited by our news media you will find that it does sound very bigoted and it does sound very racist and it does sound like something that it would be unacceptable to say to anyone without them thinking you were indeed a bigoted racist! However if you look at the raw tape you’ll find that this man actually holds dear family values and looks at different peoples plight in America but he stated it in ways that were very very un-tactful and quite frankly he stated in a stupid manner – but that does not make him a bigoted racist, what that makes him is not eloquent in speech and stupid. As a matter of fact there are many individuals coming to Mr. Bundy’s side, (as you notice I refuse to use any reference to any specific group as I believe all people are of the same “race” - we are all created equal) whom other people are using as a tool to promulgate their hatred of a group. In this case that group is anyone who differs with the liberal agenda and the liberals will use their militant attacks to ensure the low information voter remains livid and hateful. Okay let’s go on to the next part, “He should be arrested and his property and holding seized.” Here is another statement made with emotion and that very important rule of law again dismissed because that rule of law would interfere with this liberal agenda. Here again is a liberal who thinks that they should have control over another person’s property and assets without being held accountable, themselves, for the words that they have said. I would love to hear what this person would want to say if I asked them this question: “so after Mr. Bundy is arrested, and his properties and holdings are seized, what should happen to him then? Should he go through proper rule of law? Or would you have happened to him what you have said in the next part of your post?”… And here is what this self-proclaimed liberal said in the next part of this post: “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” And there we have it ladies and gentlemen, exactly what the liberals on the left want to do to anyone who steps outside of the box of oppression, intolerance, and hatred that the liberals would shove anyone into who disagrees with them. “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed…” This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what we are up against in this election! This is the sentiment that is held by the liberal elite, by those who are so dogmatically engrained in their hatred and intolerance of opposing viewpoints and rule of law and constitutionality. Here we see the viewpoint of a liberal. Death to those who oppose us! We are literally looking at someone who says that violence is acceptable, as a matter of fact this verse is saying that it should happen. Does that not bring up historical teachings? It does for me, and they are fearfully and horrifically documented – starting with this very same mindset. So now let us look at the constitutionality of this person’s statement. The Constitution, under article 1 states: “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.” Now just because the people that were gathered around to support Mr. Bundy had weapons they still were peaceably assembling to the best of my knowledge. I believe the only violence was initiated by the government agents – if I am wrong, then I apologize and please correct, with facts, thanks. So indeed they were following the constraints of law and the constraints under the Constitution under article 2 which states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So could this person who has such hatred and such animosity for those who are exercising their freedoms please tell me at what point do you cross the line between law and lawlessness? At what point do those in power simply ignore the Constitution and rule of law? Now we look at article 4, which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” So here again unless we see that the due process of law has been followed under the Constitution, what justification do people that say these types of things have for saying that these people should be shot and killed and holding seized? Even if the rule of law and constitutionality was upheld this type of statement still holds no validity and is, itself, a statement that espouses rule by violence and despotism. So where exactly does someone of this mindset place the line between our rule of law and what they think should happen? And now, a serious question – for you, the person who stated “Any person who raises a weapon against the government should be shot & killed or arrested & prosecuted as terrorists.” - Would you have had every man and woman who was there at the Bunny Ranch shot and killed? Would you have had fathers, mothers, daughters, brothers, sons, and, uncles, friends, loved ones all gunned down in cold blood because they had weapons that are protected by the Constitution of the United States? (And as far as I know, did not insight any violence or fire one shot) If you say no to this question then let’s go to the next part of your statement: Would you have every single one of them that I have already mentioned accused of terrorism? And if so, do you know what happens when a person is accused of terrorism? Do you know what that means to the rest of America? Perhaps your statements were hasty and poorly thought out. My friends we are entering an age where those who preach tolerance and rule of law are the very first, as is apparent with this example, to promote intolerance and non-constitutional lawlessness. I’ve only use this example with the Bundy issue as it was thrust upon me with such fervent hatred and contempt for freedom, constitutionality and law. But it is a good example of the chasm that exists between constitutionality and those who would have total government control. Let us not, my fellow Americans and patriots, ever forget that we are the ones who are the government. And that is where we have opportunity to ensure politicians do not strip us of our liberties. We are the ones who give power to the government, we are the ones who elect the people who decide what happens to us on a daily basis. Perhaps there was a time when a congressman was a farmer and had gone to Congress to enact laws and regulations that would be best for those who lived in his district. After all, at some point, he would have to go back home and live under those very same laws and regulations that he helped enact. But now, my friends, we are dealing with lifetime politicians. We are dealing with people who are politicians for the sake of politics. We are dealing with people who do not care about the rule of law if that rule of law opposes their agenda. It is time my friends to clean house in Washington DC. It is time to tell Congress that they may no longer vote themselves raises, get different healthcare than the rest of America, and get ridiculous salaries and pensions. It is time for us to take America back over – as Americans. It is time for those people who are patriots to run for office – not for the sake of running for office – but for the sake of enduring American freedom. With mindsets such as posted by this person, we see that we are not dealing with a group of people who understands constitutionality and rule of law and liberty, but rather a group of people that want to resort to doing whatever it takes to remove it anyone who opposes their viewpoints, even if that includes killing or charging people with terrorism without due process of law. If ever there was a slippery slope, and I used to hate that when they used it in the media, this would be it. Let’s take a look at what other people have learned from the past about this type of thinking: (all the following were taken from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/freedom-of-speech) “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington “Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear." [Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950]” ― Harry S. Truman “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” ― Theodore Roosevelt “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” ― Voltaire “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” ― James Madison “Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.” ― Neil Gaiman “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” ― John Milton, Areopagitica “To view the opposition as dangerous is to misunderstand the basic concepts of democracy. To oppress the opposition is to assault the very foundation of democracy.” ― Aung San Suu Kyi, Letters from Burma “If you're not going to use your free speech to criticize your own government, then what the hell is the point of having it?” ― Michel Templet “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it." [First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801]” ― Thomas Jefferson, The Inaugural Speeches and Messages of Thomas Jefferson, Esq.: Late President of the United States: Together with the Inaugural Speech of James Madison, Esq. ... “The framers of the constitution knew human nature as well as we do. They too had lived in dangerous days; they too knew the suffocating influence of orthodoxy and standardized thought. They weighed the compulsions for restrained speech and thought against the abuses of liberty. They chose liberty." [Beauharnais v.Illinois, 342 U.S. 250, 287 (1952) (dissenting)]” ― William O. Douglas