Everest Wilhelmsen #fundie

The "See You in Gitmo" Award

Everest Wilhelmsen #fundie americablog.com

The head of the Christian American Patriots Militia has put out an open call on Facebook for the assassination of President Obama.

“We now have authority to shoot Obama, i.e., to kill him,” writes Everest Wilhelmsen on his personal Facebook page.

[....]

image

48 comments

old comment by Passerby

"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." - The Second Amendment.

I guess I missed the small print where it says random jackass turning against the government and assassinating the head of state is A-OK.

Just what the hell do people like you think it actually says in there? There's nothing pertaining to attacking the government. Just the opposite in fact: A regulated militia (as in monitored and controlled by the government) exists with the express purpose of participating in national defense alongside army Regulars at a moment's notice.

Not untrained and unregulated civilians taking it upon themselves declare and fight a war, not crazed survivalist loners shooting at immigrants, not seditious anti-state organizations, and certainly not crackpot assassin wannabes bent on committing high treason. A regulated militia in service of the state that any citizen who meets and follows the regulations (answering to government, I can't stress that enough) may join or organize to act in defense of their region if attacked by foreign invaders. Not to declare war on your own inititive, not to launch pre-emptive attacks on percieved enemies, and not to overthrow the state.

Beyond that gross misconception of *why* you're allowed to own and train in the use of weaponry I am still a little confused as to why you consider the Obama Administration, which has thus far been considerably less abusive of your freedoms and privacy than the Bush Administration and by a great deal less actively destructive to your security and economy a threat to your person.

It doesn't have anything to do with the constitution, that's for sure - you just proved conclusively you don't know what's even written in it.

old comment by Hasan Prishtina

You refer to the Constitution, the work of the Founding Fathers. They also wrote this:

That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

Sedition Act 1798

old comment by HappyGazpacho

Posted this on that other Everest Whats-his-name post, but here we go again:

Here are some decent reasons to criticize President Obama:

Drone strikes that kill civilians

Allowing whistleblowers to be punished when they reveal the government's wrongdoing.

Not closing Gitmo and stopping "enhanced interrogation." (Actually that might count as 2)

Not respecting states' rights with regards to medical marijuana.

Letting the NSA continue to spy on US citizens and allied world leaders.

Conceding way too much to lunatic Republicans. (Of course, that one is actually a problem with the Democratic Party in general.)

Those are at least decent, right? With reasons like that, why do they always go for:

Benghazi!
Birth certificate!
Muslim!
Communist!
Nazi!
Gays!
Antichrist!
Guns!

And now we have handshakegate. Republicans are having a tantrum because Obama shook hands with another leader without criticizing him in the 1.5 seconds they took to shake hands at the funeral of Nelson Mandela.

I don't get it. There are so many good reasons, but they go for the lunatic bullshit. And when they do, they're so loud that they drown out the legitimate criticisms.

Anyway, please choose from one of the above reasons next time you criticize the president.

old comment by GigaGuess

@HappyGazpacho
Well, looking over your list:
1.) Drones only seem to be killing, or at least aimed for killing brown people. These guys tend to be on board for this. (If I'm incorrect, please correct me)

2.) These guys tend to be of the mentality of "snitches get stitches." I've yet to hear of any of these wingnuts take a whistleblower's side.

3.) Again, these things are generally used to hurt brown people, and they were all for Bush locking as many of 'em in there as they could cart back. They likely see Gitmo's continued operations as a bright point in his record.

4.) Yeah these guys are stuck in Reefer Madness days, and see Marijuana as an evil that will lure their young to dance halls and opium dens.

5.) They applauded the Patriot Act. 'Nuff said.

So yeah, the sane stuff to criticize him on are usually the things guys like this admire.

Everest Wilhelmsen #fundie americablog.com

48 comments

Confused?