Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

I guess most of you don't see the ultimate abuse of power. Here is a reminder...


We have all heard the term civil disobedience. It is a term used to describe any action that goes against the authority of the the powers granted to maintain a stable community. This is to mean a government granted the authority to prevent anarchy and chaos. This is essential to provide a stable environment where a community can prosper in relative safety.

However I would be inclined to point out a similar phrase, that must be understood as well. Governmental disobedience. This is the United States of America. This is a nation of free men and women that have chosen to allow a government under THEIR AUTHORITY... to surrender some of their choices for the greater good of the community. In other words some of us would rather drive on the left side of the road but instead we all agree to drive on the right. It helps to avoid chaos.

However at what point are we surrendering our authority to a government that is suddenly empowered by it's own will. At what point does a government overstep that fine line, and by the very belief that the power imbued is actually from the governments very own existence.

At that point we have opened the doors to something far worse than anarchy. We have opened the doors to tyranny and GOVERNMENTAL DISOBEDIENCE!

When our government at all levels, national, state , local, and even towns, start to make decisions without the true consent of the people... Usually the reasoning starts with... I was elected by the people because they trust my judgment in all the matters that I was elected for. That includes any reasoning that could influence my decisions... even if the outcome is different than the perceived values that got me elected in the first place.

The problem is that we have empowered a person. A person that is also another human being the same as every one that elected him. Prone to human frailties, anger, prejudice, pet projects, and loves. Prone to mistakes and prone to pride, greed and a long list of human qualities.

Once we have empowered this elected official it is then we must be very mindful of the very reason we have allowed a government to moderate our freedoms. A government is meant to arbitrate our petty differences for the good of the whole community. A government is meant to provide stable rules and laws. I use the word stable because every law throughout history usually has some stable basis or precedent. If laws where just changed overnight and on a continual basis, it would only lead to the very anarchy we are trying to avoid to begin with. All this law making must not be approached with just a casual attitude of the man empowered by the fact of his election. It must be approached with the gravity and tremendous responsibility allowed, If we are to maintain a free society.

Once this relationship between government and a free people is corrupted in any way or manner, the out cry should be overwhelming. At that point we have reached, the point of governmental disobedience. That is the point where the government is more important than the people and the power is no longer coming from the true authority. THE PEOPLE. WE THE PEOPLE.



This women is still on the taxpayer dollar after targeting Americans for their outspoken exercise of the 1st amendment. This is an extreme abuse against Americans. I don't hear the out rage. IS THIS THE GOVERNMENT some of you accept and permit.

The IRS is a necessary tool to levy proper and fair taxes. It is not a tool that should be used to attack people with dissenting views.

LAUGH... This woman was inline to administer the national health care plan.

Death squads, or panels... Lois Lerner has NO CONCERN for any of the American citizens. She only has concern for her own power.

She should be given life in prison as a domestic terrorist as outlined under the homeland security act. Treason is actually a major crime.

GLENNY J wrote:This women is still on the taxpayer dollar after targeting Americans for their outspoken exercise of the 1st amendment. This is an extreme abuse against Americans. I don't hear the out rage. IS THIS THE GOVERNMENT some of you accept and permit.

The IRS is a necessary tool to levy proper and fair taxes. It is not a tool that should be used to attack people with dissenting views.

LAUGH... This woman was inline to administer the national health care plan.

Death squads, or panels... Lois Lerner has NO CONCERN for any of the American citizens. She only has concern for her own power.

She should be given life in prison as a domestic terrorist as outlined under the homeland security act. Treason is actually a major crime.

ITs like I keep saying, Its too late by the time they takes these offices and roles. You have kill them while they are still in High-School

I am very skeptical that anything will happen to anyone without a revolution, because it would take the Justice Department being respectable. Not a chance.

Everyone, but everyone, knows that this goes all the way to the top. She is taking one for team Obama, only the most recent fall guy/girl.

Most likely she will be rewarded for her silence with another job somewhere after some vague words about "doing something" from Obama, or she'll get a Presidential pardon if Congress grows gonads to appoint a special prosecutor who will make this drag out for another 74 years, or the Justice Dept will "accidently" bungle the case against her, allowing her to go scott free with pension and benefits and double immunity.


THe only solution is to burn Washington DC to ashes. I don't advocate that btw (said for the benefit of Obama's brown-shirt spies who keyword and read everything being posted by anyone who disapproves of them destroying America)

PaperDog wrote:

GLENNY J wrote:This women is still on the taxpayer dollar after targeting Americans for their outspoken exercise of the 1st amendment. This is an extreme abuse against Americans. I don't hear the out rage. IS THIS THE GOVERNMENT some of you accept and permit.

The IRS is a necessary tool to levy proper and fair taxes. It is not a tool that should be used to attack people with dissenting views.

LAUGH... This woman was inline to administer the national health care plan.

Death squads, or panels... Lois Lerner has NO CONCERN for any of the American citizens. She only has concern for her own power.

She should be given life in prison as a domestic terrorist as outlined under the homeland security act. Treason is actually a major crime.

ITs like I keep saying, Its too late by the time they takes these offices and roles. You have kill them while they are still in High-School

Um .... What's the time limit for late abortions? This whole regime is a den of vipers destined to destroy America one lawless act at a time.

This whole IRS debacle was leaked by the IRS itself in order to scare conservative supporters. And it worked. Campaign donations to the conservatives movement have dried up to a trickle for fear of IRS audits and other attacks on their businesses..

sure, investigate her, find out what she's hiding. Prosecute her, if you can find anything. Dismiss her if you cannot, which I think is more than suitable.

But without any proof, regardless of how guilty you think she is, well.. then you are talking about taking away someones constitutional rights. She pleaded the 5th.

Take it for what it is: she's guilty of something, and reserved the right to remain silent (different law, but the 5th also grants that). As much as I want governmental abuse dealt with, and harshly, until we can prove something, someone is not guilty. The DoJ should be in there wreaking havoc. They should have prosecuted wall st. They should have prosecuted Bush and Cheyney.

How all this corruption is a sudden revelation to those who lean right is not a surprise. How about you oppose ALL corruption, and not just those who seem left of center?

But without any proof, regardless of how guilty you think she is, well.. then you are talking about taking away someones constitutional rights. She pleaded the 5th.

Kramer. Once she began testifying as she did, and later pleaded the 5th, she forfeited her right to plead the 5th by law. She should have gone directly to jail for obstruction.

Slacker G wrote:

But without any proof, regardless of how guilty you think she is, well.. then you are talking about taking away someones constitutional rights. She pleaded the 5th.

Kramer. Once she began testifying as she did, and later pleaded the 5th, she forfeited her right to plead the 5th by law. She should have gone directly to jail for obstruction.

I don't believe the 5th states exactly when in the trial you can or can't use it. It would seem on the surface that she answered some questions and pleaded the 5th on others, which is certainly within the limits of the law.

Now if her job requires that she reveal any/all knowledge of events within the workplace, or conspiracies outside the workplace, then I'm all for a charge of obstruction, or formal charges. And while I haven't read enough about it to formulate any real opinion, I'm thinking that her job requirements state a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that disallows her from hiding evidence, even self-incriminating evidence. I'm sure the DoJ will get right on it just like they did with wall st...

This is what presidential pardons are for

Kramerguy wrote:

Slacker G wrote:

But without any proof, regardless of how guilty you think she is, well.. then you are talking about taking away someones constitutional rights. She pleaded the 5th.

Kramer. Once she began testifying as she did, and later pleaded the 5th, she forfeited her right to plead the 5th by law. She should have gone directly to jail for obstruction.

I don't believe the 5th states exactly when in the trial you can or can't use it. It would seem on the surface that she answered some questions and pleaded the 5th on others, which is certainly within the limits of the law.

Now if her job requires that she reveal any/all knowledge of events within the workplace, or conspiracies outside the workplace, then I'm all for a charge of obstruction, or formal charges. And while I haven't read enough about it to formulate any real opinion, I'm thinking that her job requirements state a lot of legal mumbo jumbo that disallows her from hiding evidence, even self-incriminating evidence. I'm sure the DoJ will get right on it just like they did with wall st...

My information comes from Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer who spends a great deal of his time fighting lib abuses of the law in the Supreme Court. He is the founder of Landmark Legal.

He most certainly knows the law and how it applies. From where did you get your legal advice concerning this? Just curious.

This women is only protecting HER RIGHTS. Kramer , she has no interest in defending yours.

What part of that don't you understand?
I'M BEING KIND, TOLERANT AND PATIENT...

OR do you want to take the 5th too!

The next fall guy will be Eric Holder he WILL resign to distract the public from all the scandals in this administration. He WILL take one for the team! The latest is he is feeling personally remorseful for investigating the press! Basically an attempt to keep from being charged with a felony. Criminals are always remorseful AFTER they get caught LOL!

This is not just the beginning... This is the end... Of an anti American administration.

How this happened, will be explained in history... STUPIDITY, COMPLACENCY, and a HUGE WORLD WIDE POWER GRAB.

Slacker G wrote: From where did you get your legal advice concerning this? Just curious.

I looked up the bill of rights and read it. I don't like news reporters telling me what they want me to think a law says.

FIF'
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It wasn't a trial, it was congressional inquiry.

Constitutional scholars and lawyers are arguing over whether or not her pleading the 5th is even legitimate, so your congressional scholar/lawyer is but one voice in a choir of bullshit.

SO now that's outta the way-
Instead of arguing sources, why don't you tell me what's really on your mind?

GLENNY J wrote:This women is only protecting HER RIGHTS. Kramer , she has no interest in defending yours.

What part of that don't you understand?
I'M BEING KIND, TOLERANT AND PATIENT...

OR do you want to take the 5th too!

If you think I'm defending her, you are dead wrong. I'm interested in MY rights, and any scumbag, even her, who wants her civil rights most certainly can have them.

I just love how you guys talk near-treason when it comes to "defending" your precious 2nd amendment, but the rest are apparently fully negotiable and flexible. Just not the 2nd. Hypocrisy reigns supreme and repeats itself as usual.

Kramerguy wrote:

Slacker G wrote: From where did you get your legal advice concerning this? Just curious.

I looked up the bill of rights and read it. I don't like news reporters telling me what they want me to think a law says.

FIF'
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It wasn't a trial, it was congressional inquiry.

Constitutional scholars and lawyers are arguing over whether or not her pleading the 5th is even legitimate, so your congressional scholar/lawyer is but one voice in a choir of bullshit.

SO now that's outta the way-
Instead of arguing sources, why don't you tell me what's really on your mind?

GLENNY J wrote:This women is only protecting HER RIGHTS. Kramer , she has no interest in defending yours.

What part of that don't you understand?
I'M BEING KIND, TOLERANT AND PATIENT...

OR do you want to take the 5th too!

If you think I'm defending her, you are dead wrong. I'm interested in MY rights, and any scumbag, even her, who wants her civil rights most certainly can have them.

I just love how you guys talk near-treason when it comes to "defending" your precious 2nd amendment, but the rest are apparently fully negotiable and flexible. Just not the 2nd. Hypocrisy reigns supreme and repeats itself as usual.

I believe that you pulled your opinion out of your ass.

You can't swear to tell the truth and then claim the 5th as the questioning continues. She for fitted her right to claim the 5th at the beginning of the questioning.

Regardless, I will take the word of one who has spent his life studying and practicing constitutional law. He is the head of Landmark Legal Foundation, and I believe he has studied it thoroughly before he opened his mouth. Perhaps you should investights it a little more.