What would justify armed revolution in America? Wild Bill answers.

  • Currently 5/5 stars.

Views: 910


You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by Donna Rammer, mod on March 31, 2013 at 11:14pm

thanks! good common cents.

Comment by Peter van der Heiden on January 18, 2013 at 4:08pm

Yeah I think it is coming, people are tired of all the lying going on by the govt. I would have to watch from the sidelines, I'm lucky I can walk lol.

Comment by Virgil Earl Koon on January 9, 2013 at 10:13am

Looks like great fishing there! I totally agree with Wild Bill. We also remember several movies of the past. Death Wish in NYC and Death Wish 3 which took us back to NYC. We remember, also the movie, "A Few Good Men" where 2 Marines were found guilty for obeying their Commanding Officer. The ruling was Conduct unbecoming a Marine. I wonder if our servicemen and women will support their oath and not a bad Commander in Chief? Obama does not respect his oath of office as we all note from much of his actions against our people. As a veteran whose father also gave his life in WWII, we need all to support our rights given to us by our Constitution and our Amendments. It seems like, no matter how many of us desire and even insist on Obama being impeached, the media, somehow will cover it up.

Comment by Kathryn Schweigert on July 8, 2012 at 6:41am


Comment by Douglas W. Rodrigues on July 5, 2012 at 12:31am

So James, what do you have in mind?  Should you just go along with the New World Order?

Comment by Douglas W. Rodrigues on July 4, 2012 at 11:45pm

Sun Tsu would probably have said to slowly kill off the opposing leadership because he wouldn't be able to take on a vast military army.  Considering that most Vetrans, such as myself, wouldn't want to be causing harm to anyone in the Military because our hearts are still with the military, the only practical revolt would be to asassinate those treasonous politicians responsible for the peril this country is in.  Through slow attrition, the "heads of the snake" will be reduced to a powerless base, probably fearing for their lives as they should be.  Everytime a traitor shows his head at a political function, someone would be nearby to put a bullet into it.  Given enough time, and knowing human nature, the majority of the anti-Constitutional (read: Communists inspired) politicians will fall into line and stop with the subversion.  However, those politicians who played a leading role in the slow overthrow of the Constitution will have to be executed.  They are like a social virus that cannot be allowed to live.  We already know the names of those involved.  The others requiring elimination would be the leadership of the subversive CFR, the Tri-Laterals, the Bilderbergers, George Soros, David Rockerfeller, and the FED.  They are all complicit in the slow overthrow of the Constitution of the United States.  With them, ANYTHING is possible, even the killing of people such as myself who state our opinions against the treason going on in government.  Patriots should arm themselves and be prepared to assume duties to function without contact with other like people.  If Obama actually created a Martial Law situation, without a doubt all communications will cease.  It will be up to individuals themselves to do what is required...to function as a one man assault team.   Only then can we rid ourselves of the traitors in government.  If what I said sounds extreme, consider this: The U.S. Military has a new MOS (job function) of Internment Camp guards.  Exactly who does the government want to put into intermnent camps?  Us?  Why did Obama's stooge Janet Napolitano just order 20 million rounds of ammunition?  Who does she plan on shooting up?  Us?  Bill Ayers, Obama's buddy once said, "As many as 20 million citizens may have to be eliminated to have socialism succeed."  I believe him.  Perhaps that's the reason for the new MOS...to keep millions of us separated from the rest of the sheep in society who meekly go along with the New World Order? 

Comment by Douglas W. Rodrigues on July 4, 2012 at 8:41pm

If the Washington politicians of both parties allow Barack Obama to proceed with the rumored Martial Law he supposedly has planned, then a violent revolution all that is left for patriotic citizens to do.  The treasonous politicians will be the targets of that bloody revolution, and the revolution won't end until every last one of them is put into a grave.  That's how it has to be.  Nothing else will make any difference.  The time for talk will be over.

Comment by Charles Bill L.CDurry on July 4, 2012 at 1:33pm

It just maybe a 2nd revolution is needed if the scoundrol #1 remains in office.Remember the tea party that was given with by our forfathers when the threw king george III taxed tea overboard.It maybe time for true americans to throw king george IV out of the USA.What do you say?

Comment by Douglas W. Rodrigues on July 4, 2012 at 9:24am

Elections haven't been fair since the so-called Liberals have decided that electioncheating is acceptable. 

Comment by Richard Rogers on July 3, 2012 at 11:26am

On top of that FOID cards are needed to buy ammo, can't carry. Friggin criminals here are on the loose with weapons. And they can't figure out how to reduce the crime rate, bunch of morons..... There is a big CCW movement but I do not think they will win against these Dems....




Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service