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

Rating:
  • Currently 5/5 stars.

Views: 910

Comment

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

I THINK ITS COMING SOON!!!  EVERYDAY THE TENSION BUILDS BETWEEN THE SOCIETY IN AMERICA AND IS LED BY THE LEFT RADICALS AND THE YOUNGER GERNERATIONS JUST FOLLOWS.

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....

 

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service