Members of Congress will be getting extra security thanks to the nutcases who want to start a civil war.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_512030.html

Here's a bit more in this development:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...91-503544.html

Apparently at least 10 members of Congress have received death threats related to their vote for health care reform. Congressman Bart Stupak has been particularly targeted it seems. He's the pro-life Democrat who threatened to derail HCR if it didn't get harsh anti-abortion language inserted in it. He changed his vote after President Obama promised an executive order affirming the Hyde Amendment, which does not actually change anything. He's also the one that was called a "baby killer" by a Republican Congressman.

My feeling is that the swing point will come after the November election this year. Until then, most of the right-wing insurgency will be focused on the election in the expectation of a big Republican victory this year; that's in tune with the belief on the right that they represent a majority of Americans.

Well, they don't, and since HCR passed I think we can rule out any realistic prospect of a big GOP win. At best they'll win a few seats, leaving the Democrats in control of both houses of Congress. At worst, they'll implode, their campaign will play right into Democratic hands, and the Dems will actually increase their margin in Congress. Meanwhile, the legal and state-government challenges to HCR will fizzle and come to nothing.

What happens after that? Faced with irrevocable defeat in the legitimate struggle, for movement conservatives the choice will be to give up, emigrate, or turn violent. Some will choose the last course. It remains to be seen how many.

I agree, if they're too violent now, they'll be seen as the nuts they are. That will lose votes in November. But it would be interesting to see what actions, if any, Obama would take against an insurgent movement. Interesting, but not fun.

At the risk of seeming to make light of the current threats, I must write that I do see a paring in these threats and a past 4T. I see in this these verbal, and hopefully it will stay verbal, threatening of Congressmembers a link to the civil war 4T.
I bring this up here because I, like many here, disagree with the idea of a 5 year long crises.
Specifically, I think that the Civil War crises really began with the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 and everything that didn't happen until the war became irrepressible in 1860 was just an attempt to forestall the coming disaster. Brooks beat Sumner in 1856. It's hard for me to consider the violence of that act as a passing 3T thing. No, I think that it was part of that 4T.
And for the record, I see that 4T lasting until Grant's inaugural in 1869. After all, the economic crash of 1873 happened after a post war boom. Also, if the Guilded Age begins in 1869 instead of 1877, then the problem of a 9 year 1T ending with the Haymarket Affair is solved.

Originally Posted by Xer H

I agree, if they're too violent now, they'll be seen as the nuts they are. That will lose votes in November. But it would be interesting to see what actions, if any, Obama would take against an insurgent movement. Interesting, but not fun.

No, not fun. I predict that he would be a badass, as much so as the magnitude of the situation calls for. If it's a few isolated cases, that means prosecution and throwing the book at them under the Patriot Act. If it's a full-scale insurgency, think marshall law, suspension of Habeas Corpus, using Army troops and special forces to hunt them down, treason trials afterwards.

I don't really expect that last scenario, though, because like you I anticipate that most of these folks won't go all the way to organized violence.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, not fun. I predict that he would be a badass, as much so as the magnitude of the situation calls for. If it's a few isolated cases, that means prosecution and throwing the book at them under the Patriot Act. If it's a full-scale insurgency, think marshall law, suspension of Habeas Corpus, using Army troops and special forces to hunt them down, treason trials afterwards.

I don't really expect that last scenario, though, because like you I anticipate that most of these folks won't go all the way to organized violence.

Foriegn terrorists are one thing. US citizens upset with their government inability to listen is another thing. I wunder how long it would take for a general or ten generals to turn on Obama. Did Obama win the military vote?

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Foriegn terrorists are one thing. US citizens upset with their government inability to listen is another thing.

Correct, they are another thing. Foreign terrorists are not guilty of treason, while U.S. citizen terrorists are.

I wunder how long it would take for a general or ten generals to turn on Obama. Did Obama win the military vote?

That will never happen. The U.S. military knows its duty and its responsibility, and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Which, for your information, means to fight against anyone trying to overthrow the government by force of arms -- even when those people SAY they are fighting FOR the constitution.

You know, KIA, I have to say that it's bloody disturbing to see someone get up here and defend people who are trying to commit murder for political purposes. In doing that, you are defending traitors. There is no other word for it. Go beyond words, and actually give people like that material support, and you become a traitor yourself.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

... The U.S. military knows its duty and its responsibility, and took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

Which, for your information, means to fight against anyone trying to overthrow the government by force of arms -- even when those people SAY they are fighting FOR the constitution.

You know, KIA, I have to say that it's bloody disturbing to see someone get up here and defend people who are trying to commit murder for political purposes. In doing that, you are defending traitors. There is no other word for it. Go beyond words, and actually give people like that material support, and you become a traitor yourself.

It might be a good time to review the last 4T and the idea held by many that the government belongs to the conservative wing of the country. This Tea Party anger is different, but the source is the same. The Business Plot happened and something equally weird might happen again ... just in a different form.

Not that it will matter. I expect the current military will respond much like Smedley Butler. The rebellion will be short.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You know, KIA, I have to say that it's bloody disturbing to see someone get up here and defend people who are trying to commit murder for political purposes. In doing that, you are defending traitors. There is no other word for it. Go beyond words, and actually give people like that material support, and you become a traitor yourself.

I'm not defending anyone yet. Hypotheticals aren't real. Brian, you should have seen the damage that was done to St. Paul by L-wingers during the Republican convention.

All this goes to show how "treason" works in America: When the right does it or contemplates it, it's in the context of levying war against the United States; when the left does it or contemplates it, it's in the context of giving aid and comfort to an enemy.

Guess the Founding Fathers were onto something when they included both criteria in their definition of treason.

One of the central events of a Fourth Turning is the last five years or so when the nation threatening violence occurs. So why surprise when little bits of evidence surface to indicate that there is discontent in the hinterland.

I think if (more likely when) civil violence erupts, whether it is revolution or civil war, it will be a three way affair. Those is power and who benefit from the policies and actions of the central government will certainly have a dog in the fight; this group will be composed of the present ruling class, both Republican and Democratic and the portion of the military which is loyal to them. There is another group that has reason to rebel because they want more government to save them from the crisis conditions, for example those who wanted the recent health bill to go much farther; this group is unhappy with the present government because they see that it has sold out to special interest and as using the power of government for plunder and control of the majority; this group is seen as the far left because they want a collective society with major government management. The third group is composed of those who want minimum government and maximum individual freedom; this group is seen as the far right, but this third group sees itself as libertarian with individual values.

So let me for convenience call these groups, "Establishment", "Left", and "Right".

The Left I think is more urban while the Right is more rural. The Establishment is disbursed, but does have more concentration in Washington, DC and in the financial centers. The Right is far better armed than the Left, and the Establishment under current conditions is better armed than either of the rebel groups. Under severe breakdown conditions like the failure of the electric grid, and unavailable fuel, the high tech warriors of the Establishment will lose a good deal of advantage. Access to food will be of paramount importance, which gives the Right some advantage. The fighting is not likely to be big battlefield engagements. Neighbor killing neighbor, assassinations, bombings, small raids, sabotage, and starvation likely be big contributors to the death count.

There seems to be good evidence that we are in the crisis period so one would expect sometime between now and 2025 for violence to erupt. Reading various internet discussion groups I can see the animosity between the Left and Right and a lot of anti-government sentiment, and of course the Boomers are the real danger. The compromising Silents are mostly at the end of their influence and certainly will be leaving the scene over the remainder of the crisis period.

I think the crisis is both financial and energy, and that compared to the prior three 4ths, this will be much more intense.

The US has been the beneficiary of the industrial age from its inception in 1781. Coal, then oil, then natural gas, and then uranium were new sources of energy, mostly unused before 1781. Back then the world population was 3/4 of a billion people. It took all of human history to reach that 3/4 of a billion mark, simply because the resources available (mostly renewable) could not support more. But in the 200+ years since then the population has exploded to 6 3/4 billion, which surely is attributed to the life sustaining output of the energy driven industrial age. But now we are reaching geological limits to energy production. Insiders from the oil patch tell us that we are at or very near the peak of oil production and that production will begin to fall soon. The also tell us that future production will come at much higher cost as all the low hanging fruit has been picked. So we face escalating costs and declining production; and these both have rates of change. If the rate of change in cost is 3.5% (which is the historic average) then in 20 years the cost will be double in real terms. If the rate of change in production is -3.5% then production will be half of what it is today in just 20 years. The combined effect of these could easily cut the world economic output by much more than half. What would happen to the huge number of people dependent on the output of the industrial age for their survival. This is a factor that was not present in the last three 4th Turnings.

Against this backdrop of long term and major economic contraction we have the financial crisis that arose from our debt based monetary system. The M2 money supply back in 1932 at the bottom of the last major monetary contraction was in the neighborhood of $50 billion. Today it is about $8,500 billion. This is a huge increase and the great bulk of this money was printed up as either currency or checking account balances and loaned into existence. The money supply is virtually all bank debt. What the banks hold for issuing this debt is the notes signed by individuals, businesses, and governments when they borrowed this newly created money. The consequences of this increase in money supply was to provide the fuel to bid up prices, and up they did go, as both increases in the price of consumables and for a recent example the unprecedented real estate bubble. But what is owed to the banks is evaporating by default at a frightening rate and ultimately can take down the banking system and wipe out the ability of banks to pay their liabilities (your checking and savings account for example).

So here we sit, moving into the greater depression, with the potential for unemployment to reach 50%, no new oil exploration to speak of (as if that would do any good), deferred maintenance of the electric grid and generating capacity, and the middle class essentially delivered straight to the doorstep of poverty. Add food shortages (plenty of starvation) and a predatory ruling class and government intent on making anyone but themselves suffer the majority of the effect of the contraction.

I think this is more than adequate incentive for this three way killing competition to erupt. And if you ever wondered if the North or South had sufficient hatred of the other to used nuclear weapons, if they had existed, I think you might find out soon enough as parts of the military chooses one of the three sides. I suppose there will be survivors; there usually are, but those who do survive will find they live in an economy that is more reminiscent of Early America or at the very best Little House on the Prairie.

The whole thing makes me remember stomping on red ant hills as a kid and then watching the chaos.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

All this goes to show how "treason" works in America: When the right does it or contemplates it, it's in the context of levying war against the United States; when the left does it or contemplates it, it's in the context of giving aid and comfort to an enemy.

Anthony, treason is the only crime that is actually DEFINED in the U.S. Constitution, and the definition is clear:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Forming a paramilitary group and engaging in violent insurrection against the U.S. government is "levying war" against the United States. Capiche? You know, forming armies, taking up arms, shooting people. War. No metaphors, literal reality. That's treason.

Also, offering "aid and comfort" -- which if you understand the English usage of the time, means MATERIAL aid, not just nicey-nice words -- to these guys, giving them ammunition or food, hiding them from the authorities, providing meeting-places or information to them -- that's treason, too. (Or providing similar help to foreign enemies in wartime.)

KIA is not, as far as I can tell, guilty of treason at this point, because all he has done is to offer nicey-nice words about hypothetical people committing treason by taking up arms against the U.S. government. Nicey-nice words aren't treason. (They're not treason when spoken about a foreign country we're at war with, either.) Dead wrong IMO, yes. Utterly disgusting IMO, yes. Treason, no. But if he went beyond nicey-nice words and either joined in the insurgent army or gave them material aid, that would be treason.

There's a reason why the crime of treason is defined in the Constitution and defined so narrowly: it's historically prone to abuse by tyrannical governments, who define any disagreement with them or any expression of that disagreement as treasonous. That's the kind of approach YOU seem to want to take, and so that definition is in there to protect us from YOUR kind when and if they have political power. But the crime exists nonetheless. Actual instances of it have been quite rare in our history, except of course during the Civil War when it occurred wholesale (but Confederate soldiers were pardoned en masse so no treason trials or punishments occurred AFAIK; if there were any there weren't many).

The Tea Party folks have a constitutional right to hold demonstrations, to organize on behalf of political candidates, to make their voices heard. They do not have a constitutional right to shoot people. If they go beyond exercise of their First Amendment rights and take up what they might mistakenly believe to be their Second Amendment rights -- which protect only keeping and bearing of arms, not use of those arms against the government -- then they will be traitors and should be treated as such. Clearly, and according to the strict and narrow definition in the Constitution. Because they will have levied war against the United States.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The Tea Party folks have a constitutional right to hold demonstrations, to organize on behalf of political candidates, to make their voices heard. They do not have a constitutional right to shoot people.

Or smash windows and cut propane lines. Or spit on people.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Or smash windows and cut propane lines. Or spit on people.

I assume your condemnation includes both sides:

1. Remember when GOP headquarters were vandalized? http://bit.ly/cjkC3B
2. Swastika burned into lawn of Bush/Cheney supporter http://bit.ly/aBLO8h
3. Shots fired at Bush/Cheney headquarters in Knoxville http://bit.ly/cF7txC
4. Supporters ransack Bush/Cheney headquarters in Orlando http://bit.ly/bZAdLu
5. Beating of Kenneth Gladrey by SEIU goons.

The left's hands are far from clean.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I assume your condemnation includes both sides:

1. Remember when GOP headquarters were vandalized? http://bit.ly/cjkC3B
2. Swastika burned into lawn of Bush/Cheney supporter http://bit.ly/aBLO8h
3. Shots fired at Bush/Cheney headquarters in Knoxville http://bit.ly/cF7txC
4. Supporters ransack Bush/Cheney headquarters in Orlando http://bit.ly/bZAdLu
5. Beating of Kenneth Gladrey by SEIU goons.

The left's hands are far from clean.

James50

I haven't forgotten, and yes, I condemn thuggery no matter where it originates.

Originally Posted by James50

I assume your condemnation includes both sides:

1. Remember when GOP headquarters were vandalized? http://bit.ly/cjkC3B
2. Swastika burned into lawn of Bush/Cheney supporter http://bit.ly/aBLO8h
3. Shots fired at Bush/Cheney headquarters in Knoxville http://bit.ly/cF7txC
4. Supporters ransack Bush/Cheney headquarters in Orlando http://bit.ly/bZAdLu
5. Beating of Kenneth Gladrey by SEIU goons.

The left's hands are far from clean.

James50

Also GOP leadership is taking a lot of heat for rallying the protest from the balcony of the Congress, however, I bet many of the senior staff members in the Obama white house were the same junior staffers who trashed the WH offices in Jan. 2001.

Originally Posted by kurthi

Also GOP leadership is taking a lot of heat for rallying the protest from the balcony of the Congress, however, I bet many of the senior staff members in the Obama white house were the same junior staffers who trashed the WH offices in Jan. 2001.

You bet?

How about some actual evidence for your claim?

Because everybody saw what Bachmann and company did.

Originally Posted by kurthi

Also GOP leadership is taking a lot of heat for rallying the protest from the balcony of the Congress, however, I bet many of the senior staff members in the Obama white house were the same junior staffers who trashed the WH offices in Jan. 2001.

After nine years there should have been some arrests and prosecutions by the Dubya-era Justice Department, which was never known for leniency toward political opponents.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Or smash windows and cut propane lines. Or spit on people.

Or make threatening or indecent phone calls. Or send faxes with images of nooses.

We just don't know who did. Just watch the police blotters.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

You bet?

How about some actual evidence for your claim?

Because everybody saw what Bachmann and company did.

I know it's from 2002, however the G.A.O. did spend $$$$$

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us...gao-finds.html

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Or make threatening or indecent phone calls. Or send faxes with images of nooses.

We just don't know who did. Just watch the police blotters.

A movie that showed a mocked assassination of George W Bush that won prizes Internationally and wasn't condemned in this Country.

Eric Cantor also requested extra protection. Its the anarchists doing this, not the the entire movement. So let's slow down and put down the stones.

Eric Cantor(R) campaign headquarters shot at, received threatening emails. http://bit.ly/cyJhX5

James50

No matter who does it, that sort of thing is out of line. However, one things you can say about the opposition in the Bush years: nobody AFAIK ever suggested that it was proper to use armed force against the Bush administration or to overthrow the government because we had failed to win through the democratic process.

No one is actually taking that sort of action now, but it IS being presented as an alternative, and threats are being made that it will happen if Congress doesn't repeal health reform and otherwise conform to these people's ideological demands. This is a higher level of threat than has occurred before (since the 1860s), and therefore something to be more concerned about and take more seriously.

Originally Posted by kurthi

I know it's from 2002, however the G.A.O. did spend $$$$$

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us...gao-finds.html

You wrote:

I bet many of the senior staff members in the Obama white house were the same junior staffers who trashed the WH offices in Jan. 2001.

While you have established that vandalism took place, you still have not shown a connection to "senior staff members in the Obama [W]hite [H]ouse." Can you do that?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No matter who does it, that sort of thing is out of line. However, one things you can say about the opposition in the Bush years: nobody AFAIK ever suggested that it was proper to use armed force against the Bush administration or to overthrow the government because we had failed to win through the democratic process.

No one is actually taking that sort of action now, but it IS being presented as an alternative, and threats are being made that it will happen if Congress doesn't repeal health reform and otherwise conform to these people's ideological demands. This is a higher level of threat than has occurred before (since the 1860s), and therefore something to be more concerned about and take more seriously.

There are a lot of people waking up (personal norms) and do not know how to handle it. Its not an excuse but long held beliefs are either being challenged or rendered null and void today. For instance, the author of Daily Kos website was a Republican at one time, he saw things that weren't right and changed 180 degrees his belief system. For me, it was the same but I didn't make that complete switch; it was the destruction of personal freedoms and Katrina made me rethink who gets my vote for now on.