[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Christopher Caldwell: How Immigration Is Erasing Whites, Christians, and the Middle Class

SSRI Connection? Another Trans Shooter, Another Massacre – And They Erased His Video

Something 1/2 THE SIZE of the SUN has Entered our Solar System, and We Have NO CLUE What it is...

Massive Property Tax Fraud Exposed - $5.1 Trillion Bond Scam Will Crash System

Israel Sold American Weapons to Azerbaijan to Kill Armenian Christians

Daily MEMES YouTube Hates | YouTube is Fighting ME all the Way | Making ME Remove Memes | Part 188

New fear unlocked while stuck in highway traffic - Indian truck driver on his phone smashes into

RFK Jr. says the largest tech companies will permit Americans to access their personal health data

I just researched this, and it’s true—MUST SEE!!

Savage invader is disturbed that English people exist in an area he thought had been conquered

Jackson Hole's Parting Advice: Accept Even More Migrants To Offset Demographic Collapse, Or Else

Ecuador Angered! China-built Massive Dam is Tofu-Dreg, Ecuador Demands $400 Million Compensation

UK economy on brink of collapse (Needs IMF Bailout)

How Red Light Unlocks Your Body’s Hidden Fat-Burning Switch

The Mar-a-Lago Accord Confirmed: Miran Brings Trump's Reset To The Fed ($8,000 Gold)

This taboo sex act could save your relationship, expert insists: ‘Catalyst for conversations’

LA Police Bust Burglary Crew Suspected In 92 Residential Heists

Top 10 Jobs AI is Going to Wipe Out

It’s REALLY Happening! The Australian Continent Is Drifting Towards Asia

Broken Germany Discovers BRUTAL Reality

Nuclear War, Trump's New $500 dollar note: Armstrong says gold is going much higher

Scientists unlock 30-year mystery: Rare micronutrient holds key to brain health and cancer defense

City of Fort Wayne proposing changes to food, alcohol requirements for Riverfront Liquor Licenses

Cash Jordan: Migrant MOB BLOCKS Whitehouse… Demands ‘11 Million Illegals’ Stay

Not much going on that I can find today

In Britain, they are secretly preparing for mass deaths

These Are The Best And Worst Countries For Work (US Last Place)-Life Balance

These Are The World's Most Powerful Cars

Doctor: Trump has 6 to 8 Months TO LIVE?!

Whatever Happened to Robert E. Lee's 7 Children


Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: The 'Second American Revolution' Has Begun
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.rense.com/general87/second.htm
Published: Aug 13, 2009
Author: Gerald Celente
Post Date: 2009-08-13 08:39:12 by Horse
Keywords: None
Views: 869
Comments: 83

KINGSTON, NY -- The natives are restless. The third shot of the "Second American Revolution" has been fired. History is being made. But just as with the first two shots, the third shot is not being heard.

America is seething. Not since the Civil War has anything like this happened. But the protests are either being intentionally downplayed or ignorantly misinterpreted.

The first shot was fired on April 15, 2009. Over 700 anti-tax rallies and "Tea Parties" erupted nationwide. Rather than acknowledge their significance, the general media either ignored or ridiculed both protests and protestors, playing on "tea bagging" for its sexual innuendo.

Initially President Obama said he was unaware of the tea parties. The White House later warned they could "mutate" into something "unhealthy."

Shot #2 was fired on the Fourth of July, when throngs of citizens across the nation gathered to again protest "taxation without representation." And as before, the demonstrations were branded right-wing mischief and dismissed.

The third volley, fired in early August, was aimed point blank at Senators and House members pitching President Obama's health care reform package to constituents. In fiery town hall meetings, enraged citizens shouted down their elected representatives. It took a strong police presence and/or burly bodyguards to preserve a safe physical space between the politicians and irate townspeople.

The White House and the media have labeled protestors "conservative fringe elements," or as players in staged events organized by Republican operatives that have been egged on by Fox news and right-wing radio show hosts.

In regard to this latest wave of outbursts, health industry interests opposed to any reform are also being blamed for inciting the public. But organized or spontaneous is not the issue. While most protestors exhibit little grasp of the complex 1000 page health care reform document (that nary a legislator has read either), their emotion is clearly real and un-staged.

Rightly or wrongly, the legislation is regarded as yet another straw on the already overloaded camel's back. A series of gigantic, unpopular government-imposed (but taxpayer-financed) bailouts, buyouts, rescue and stimulus packages have been stuffed down the gullet of Americans. With no public platform to voice their opposition, options for citizens have been limited to fruitless petitions, e-mails and phone calls to Congress all fielded by anonymous staff underlings.

Now, with Congress in recess and elected representatives less than a stone's throw away, the public is exploding. The devil is not in the details of the heath care reform, the devil is the government mandating health care. Regardless of how the plan is pitched or what is being promised, to the public the legislation is yet another instance of big government taking another piece out of their lives and making them pay for it; again telling them what they can or cannot do.

Though in its early stages, the "Second American Revolution" is underway. Yet, what we forecast will become the most profound political trend of the century ­ the trend that will change the world ­ is still invisible to the same experts, authorities and pundits who didn't see the financial crisis coming until the bottom fell out of the economy.

Trend Forecast: Conditions will continue to deteriorate. The global economy is terminally ill. The recession is in a brief remission, not the early stages of recovery. Cheap money, easy credit and unrestrained borrowing brought on an economic crisis that cannot be cured by monetary and fiscal policies that promote more cheap money, easy credit and unrestrained borrowing.

Nevertheless, Washington will continue to intervene, tax and exert control. Protests will escalate and riots will follow.

Fourth Shot of the "Second American Revolution": While there are many wild cards that could light the fuse, The Trends Research Institute forecasts that if the threat of government-forced Swine Flu vaccinations is realized, it will be the fourth shot. Tens of millions will fight for their right to remain free and unvaccinated.

Publisher's Note: The power of the Internet and new technologies is inexorably fermenting the "Second American Revolution." However widespread and emotionally charged, had the tax rallies, tea parties and healthcare reform protests occurred in years past, they might have been covered by the local media, but might not have made national headline news and thus would have died stillborn.

Now, with the ubiquitous camera-equipped cell phone, universal access to YouTube, and millions of twitters and tweets, the uprisings cannot be ignored, contained, managed, spun or edited down. The revolutionary fervor will prove contagious.

Can anything stop it?

Trend Forecast: Before the momentum of the "Second American Revolution" becomes unstoppable, it could be derailed through some false flag event designed to deceive the public, or a genuine event or crisis capable of rallying the entire nation behind the President. In a worst-case scenario, according to Trends Research Institute Director, Gerald Celente, "Given the pattern of governments to parlay egregious failures into mega-failures, the classic trend they follow, when all else fails, is to take their nation to war."

A false flag attempt, a genuine crisis, or a declaration of war, may slow the momentum of the "Second American Revolution," but nothing will stop it.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 58.

#6. To: Horse (#0)

The Second Amernment is going to lose in this debate. Your guy in New Hampshire didn't do it any favors.

war  posted on  2009-08-13   10:03:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: war, PaulCJ (#6)

The Second Amernment is going to lose in this debate. Your guy in New Hampshire didn't do it any favors.

You demonstrate that the Second remains an accurate litmus for statist liberals.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-08-13   11:18:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: TooConservative (#11)

You demonstrate that the Second remains an accurate litmus for statist liberals.

Nope. I demonstrate how the swell of public sentiment is moving against "...my cold dead fingers..."

Story warned the republic that keeping and bearing were contigent upon regulation and DISCIPLNE and that ignoring this would imperil the "right".

Someone else - not sure who - once observed that "the Bill of Rights are just amendments" implying they could be repealed and repealed they can be and while I may not agree with the implied threat behind that observation I can tell you that I fear it.

war  posted on  2009-08-13   11:50:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: war (#13)

Someone else - not sure who - once observed that "the Bill of Rights are just amendments" implying they could be repealed and repealed they can be and while I may not agree with the implied threat behind that observation I can tell you that I fear it.

No, the Bill of Rights were those guarantees which were required by the states before they would ratify the Constitution.

They rank above any other amendments legally and the Constitution itself loses a substantial portion of its own legitimacy.

The Constitution has no legal moorings without the Bill of Rights. And you have no rights with it.

And you sure sound like someone who desires the repeal of the Second.

TooConservative  posted on  2009-08-13   13:55:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: TooConservative (#26)

And you have no rights with it.

Incorrect.

The Constitution (and BOR) guarantee rights we already posess as individuals. They do not provide us with those rights, they are not the source of rights. They simply recognize the rights we have inherent in us, and promise to act as a guarantor of said rights. Without that piece of paper, you'd still have every right listed in the BOR.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-13   14:06:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: SonOfLiberty (#27)

The Constitution (and BOR) guarantee rights we already posess as individuals. They do not provide us with those rights, they are not the source of rights. They simply recognize the rights we have inherent in us, and promise to act as a guarantor of said rights. Without that piece of paper, you'd still have every right listed in the BOR.

The only rights you have the rights you fight for, or we collectively fight for. Pretending you have inherent rights does nothing in the real world to give you real rights. In this Locke and Jefferson were being wrong or naive.

Rights are an man made creation. Nature has no need for rights as it has no will.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-13   14:50:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Rhino369 (#33)

I don't live by the law of the jungle, sorry.

All abstract concepts are human constructs. That does not mean that the abstraction of objective reality falls into the realm of fantasy. 1 + 1 = 2, even though math is an abstraction of objective reality created by the human mind.

Law exists to protect rights. Law does not instill rights.

Any other view, leads to tyranny and law of the jungle in short order. A world of brutes and thugs, rapes and murder and wanton slaughter for the joy of pain.

You are free to believe as you will. But if you (and a lot of friends) ever manage to repeal the BOR, I'm still acting according to the notion that I posses rights inalienable to my being. And so will most people.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-13   14:58:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: SonOfLiberty (#35)

I don't live by the law of the jungle, sorry.

The reality of the universe isn't subject your wishes and whims. What you mean is you think there should be inalienable rights.

That does not mean that the abstraction of objective reality falls into the realm of fantasy. 1 + 1 = 2, even though math is an abstraction of objective reality created by the human mind.

Math is a way of modeling the real world. Your views on rights are you subjective opinion and they are in no way objective.

Law exists to protect rights. Law does not instill rights.

What reason do you believe that?

Any other view, leads to tyranny and law of the jungle in short order.

Irrelevant, but also not true.

A world of brutes and thugs, rapes and murder and wanton slaughter for the joy of pain.

Sounds like the real world to me.

But if you (and a lot of friends) ever manage to repeal the BOR, I'm still acting according to the notion that I posses rights inalienable to my being.

I don't want to repeal the bill of rights, I believe they are the source of my rights.

I'm still acting according to the notion that I posses rights inalienable to my being. And so will most people.

Like I said your rights are coming from your willingness to assert them. Not nature.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-13   15:09:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Rhino369 (#37)

Sorry, I don't live by the law of the jungle.

You'll have to find somebody else to sell the notion to that rights come from government/law. I'm not buying it.

Sorry.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-13   15:12:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: SonOfLiberty (#40)

Sorry, I don't live by the law of the jungle.

You'll have to find somebody else to sell the notion to that rights come from government/law. I'm not buying it.

Sorry.

You still can't explain why you think rights are inherent. You just believe they are and argue why it would be bad if they weren't. You are engaging in wishful thinking.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-13   15:20:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Rhino369 (#44)

Sorry.

My rights are mine and inalienable. I don't have to justify them to you. You cannot take them by force, nor by persuasion.

I'm a very frustrating individual, I'll bet. I could easily engage you in an in depth debate about the epistemology of my beliefs and how I've come to my set of axioms. We could debate the framework of morality I hold, and I could provide a thousand logical answers to a thousand questions. We could go over Locke, Hume, DeCartes, Aristotle, Socrates, Plato all line and verse for months I'll bet. Debate the nature of reality itself, of quantuum realities or non-reality or perception being reality versus perception being formed by reality. I used to do so quite a bit on other forums in years gone by actually. Ask around.

But I'm sorry, that time has passed.

The time of digging in has arrived. Debate the wind for all I care. No offense, I don't know you personally and have no history with you, it's nothing personal. I'm comfortable with my view on life now, and no longer feel the need to argue it. Now I'm all about getting ready to fight for that view of life. Force is required of course to fight for the ability to exercise one's rights, without question. But even without the ability to exercise a right, I still posses it innately. That's where things stand right now.

SonOfLiberty  posted on  2009-08-13   15:29:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: SonOfLiberty (#47)

My rights are mine and inalienable. I don't have to justify them to you. You cannot take them by force, nor by persuasion.

Alright pretend whatever you want. Your inalienable rights are entirely indistinguishable from having no rights at all.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-13   15:35:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Rhino369 (#49)

Alright pretend whatever you want. Your inalienable rights are entirely indistinguishable from having no rights at all.

Are you McCain_Rocks on LP?

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-13   15:39:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Hayek Fan (#51)

Are you McCain_Rocks on LP?

Fuck no. I was Rhino369, and then Rhino on LP.

I believe humans have rights, but the idea that they are inherent in the universe is obviously not true. I believe the only way to secure rights to assert them in this world. Our rights come from a social contract, not a Jefferson's imaginary god. I love Jefferson's work, but his insistence on creating his own god to legitimize his points is quite embarrassing.

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-13   15:42:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Rhino369 (#55)

Our rights come from a social contract,

That's pretty much what McCain_Rocks says. He also believes that rights come from the government.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-13   15:47:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Hayek Fan (#57)

That's pretty much what McCain_Rocks says. He also believes that rights come from the government.

The social contract has been talked about for hundreds of years by people like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

Our constitution exists because of that theory.

Where do you think rights come from?

Rhino369  posted on  2009-08-13   15:59:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 58.

#68. To: Rhino369 (#58)

The social contract has been talked about for hundreds of years by people like Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.

IMHO there is a difference between rights and the social contract. However, as far as the social contract goes, it's been talked about for a lot longer than what you state. The social contract was written about in the Indian sanskrit epic Mahabharata around the 8th century BC. Plato discussed it in his dialog Crito. Francisco Suárez also discussed it as a way to limit the divine right of absolute Monarchy.

Also, I believe it is a mistake to lump Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau together, because although they each discussed social contract theory, they were different from one another in their beliefs. Besides that, both Hobbes and Locke believed in natural rights. What Hobbes objected to was natural law, but John Locke relied heavily on natural law in his writings. He also believed that man's natural rights of "life, liberty, and estate" could not be negated by the social contract. If you are going to argue against natural rights, you would be better served quoting Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke instead of Hobbes and Locke.

Where do you think rights come from?

I disagree that rights come from the social contract for the simple fact that I, like Locke, believe that I have rights that cannot be taken away by any social contract. For that matter, you believe the same thing. I have read on more than one occasion where you have written that you believe that government does not have a right to prevent a woman from getting an abortion. Are you not saying that a woman has a natural right to control her own body regardless of any social contract declaring otherwise?

While I am not a Christian, nor a member of any religion, I am a believer of natural rights and natural law. I believe that right and wrong, good and evil is objective, not subjective, and I believe that right and wrong, good and evil is universal and apparent to most rational beings. For instance, I believe I have a natural right to defend myself and my family. I do not believe that any social contract/government has a moral right to take that away from me, regardless of whether the majority say differently. That doesn't mean that they cannot and will not stop me, but their actions would be immoral.

I do not agree with the idea that just because a social contract/the government has determined that it can use force to stop me from protecting me and my family (as an example) means that there is no such thing a natural law or natural rights. On the contrary, it means that that social contract/government is immoral and will eventually fail. IMHO, a social contract without the safeguards of man's natural rights built in is a prescription for tyranny.

So, I gave you just a small synopsis of my beliefs and why I believe the way that I do. I understand that your opinion is different and that is fine. All the arguments in the world are not going to change either of our minds. I have no desire to argue with you over our different beliefs. I merely asked if you were McCain_Rocks because you both share the same beliefs on this matter. You have answered that you are not and I'll leave it at that.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2009-08-13 17:27:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 58.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]