When Maxine Waters called for people to “push back” on Trump Administration officials, she was not exercising free speech, she was openly advocating subversion!
Maxine Waters: “God Is On Our Side,” If You See A Member Of Trump Cabinet, “Push Back”
This is not ‘free speech.’ In spite of what so many believe, and what the courts have said, free speech has limits. And some speech crosses the line between what is legal and what is not. In this cases, Maxine Waters has not only crossed that line, she has declared war on this nation and its system of government. What’s more, this can be proven. That means it is fact, not my opinion. If you will give me a few minutes, I will prove it to you.
First, whether the reader likes it or not, President Trump is the duly-elected Executive of the United States of America. This means that his opponents have as much duty to support him in his official capacity as t5hey demanded from Obama’s opponents when Obama was President. Any organized actions to hinder or prohibit the execution of the Presidents duties constitutes an attack on the Presidency and our system of government. When this organization comes from inside the government, it is a clear act of subversion:
1 : the act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within
(Even Wikipedia gets this one right)
The act of calling for people to harass duly elected and/or appointed officials from performing their duties is a call for subversion. As a member of the government, that makes this call ‘subversion’ — and it is subversion by definition! Anything that is true by definition is a fact! A fact is not opinion. Therefore, this is not my ‘opinion,’ it is a fact! Maxine Waters is openly calling for the subversion of the United States government.
[If the government were of the will, it could easily make a case against Waters under 18 U.S. Code § 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government.]
Now, I am fully aware that the courts have ruled that a person has a First Amendment ‘right’ to openly call for sedition, but the courts are wrong! We have to get past this notion that the courts are never wrong, or that they are the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional. they are 1/5 of the Constitutional authority in this nation! That’s right, 1/5! They share 1/3 of the Federal power to interpret the Constitution, but the States and the People also have an equal authority to decide what is and is not Constitutional. In fact, the ultimate authority lies with the People, and the Constitution even says so! Therefore, when the courts are clearly wrong, their rulings must be reversed — like the SCOTUS reversed an old ruling connected to the Japanese interments in WW II today.
Now, back to the courts and their claim that a person is protected from subversion as long as their speech does not represent a clear and imminent threat. Since Maxine Waters called for subversion against the Trump Administration, there have been at least 20 ‘credible threats’ against the DHS, ICE has been attacked and at least one location forced to close down and at least one agent has been injured. Look it up, folks: these are just a few examples of what Waters’ supporters have been doing, and they all meet the definition of imminent threats. What’s more, they can be directly connected to Maxine Waters’ call for subversion! This means her words are creating an imminent threat and, therefore, are not ‘protected speech’ according to our rogue courts.
But let’s say that the reader rejects the claim that any of these are imminent threats or connected to Maxine Waters’ call for ‘push back’ against Trump and his Administration. Her words still are not protected by the First Amendment as they constitute screaming “fire!” in a crowded theater. Any reasonable person should expect that Maxine Waters’ words would be taken by some as a call to violence, especially in this current political environment. This would exclude her speech from First Amendment protections for this reason, as well.
Finally, we need to return to the limitations of free speech. We do have a right to speak our minds, but that does not mean we have a right to do it wherever or however we desire. Nor do we have a right to be heard, or for anything we demand to be granted. Additionally, we have a right to assembly and to redress grievances against the government. However — and here is where Waters steps outside her Constitutional protections — there are procedures by which these things must be done. A mob assembled to ‘push back’ against a government official — especially when on private property — is not an ‘assembly’ and, therefore, is not protected. Nor is ‘push back’ a redress of grievances. That would be petitioning, going to public hearings, publishing pamphlets or broadcast opinion pieces or otherwise attempting to sway government officials and fellow citizens to your political position. What Maxine Waters did is none of this. Her actions were lawless, and she should be prosecuted accordingly.
Now, hear me clearly on the rest of this. I do not say these things lightly. Our protection to protest and to petition for changes in our government is part of what makes this nation exceptional, and I am still under oath to defend these rights. But it is in defense of these rights that I now call for Maxine Waters to be charged with and prosecuted for subversion. If a person is allowed to incite violence than wash their hands of their guilt by claiming they did not use whatever specific language is demanded to ‘prove’ intent, then one will have a difficult time convicting anyone of anything — least of all our modern ‘hate’ crimes. Most of those are not based on anything a person actually said, but on what they did and how a ‘reasonable’ person would interpret their actions. This must be the standard in cases such as this. Otherwise, we will have lawlessness that will devolve (if it hasn’t already) to the point where people are prosecuted selectively, based on political connections and affiliations. At that point, the government will have been subverted, the rule of law destroyed and the nation will either fall into anarchy or tyranny. Before the reader thinks I am exaggerating, let me remind the reader that they could be put in jail for making a YouTube video or donating too much to a friend’s election (both actually happened, neither had ever happened before, and both happened because Obama wanted to punish political opponents). Oh, and if you happen to be in a political Party that opposes the current Administration, you could also find yourself the subject of an IRS attack and FBI investigation based on false charges brought by the current regime (again, all things that happened under Obama).
If this still isn’t enough to make my case with the reader, let us remember that our system of law and government is founded upon the Principles of Natural Law. Under the Principles of Natural Law, every citizen who wishes to claim any benefit or protection from Society has a duty to uphold, defend and support the provisions of the Social Contract (in this case, the Constitution). In all reality, this is the only point I should have to make to make my case against Maxine Waters as she has clearly violated her duty to support our duly elected President. I did not like Obama, but I called for him to be handled legally, under our legal system and the Constitution. Waters has that same duty toward Trump. She does not have to like him, but — even is she sincerely believes Trump is a threat to the nation — she still has a duty to recognize, support and act within the confines of our system. This means she has violated not only the laws of this nation, but also Natural Law (which happens to be part of God’s Law, in case she actually thinks God is on her side).
So I’ll say it again:
Maxine Waters has openly called for subversion! She should be charged and prosecuted accordingly! As should all those who have given her tangible aid in this case.
I’ll leave you with this one last thought:
Congress has admonished Waters’ for her language, but it has done nothing about her actions. Words have consequences. This is why we place such importance on the right of free speech: because they can lead to action. But Congress has taken no action against her. It is in Congress’s power to censure or even eject Maxine Waters, should they wish to do so (Section I, Article 5, U.S. Constitution). But all they did is say “Bad girl!” This means Congress — the whole of Congress — is just as corrupt and lawless as Waters. they have a duty to protect this nation and its system of government, yet they are doing nothing while one of its own calls for the subversion of the very system they use to make themselves rich. Think about that, and consider whether or not the rule of law actually exists in this country anymore or not…
[NOTE: When Waters claimed that “God is on our side,” she came close to — if not actually committed blasphemy.]
3 thoughts on “PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW: Maxine Waters Openly Advocates Subversion — Congress does Nothing!”
Reblogged this on The Rio Norte Line.
While I agree with your overall premise. I do have an objection to the whole freedom of speech restrictions.
To me the whole idea of restricting free speech based on the idea of “not yelling fire in a theater” completely obsolves the viewers of their personal responsibility. If you are sitting in the theater and someone walks in and yells “fire” would you immediately rampage out of the place or would you look around to see what the hell is going on?
If that is such an awful thing then you punish that you don’t restrict free speech. Our God-given rights should not be infringed upon because some person did something Either stupid or unlawful.
The problem with allowing unlimited use of a Natural Right is that it leads to the loss of all rights. Our founders tried it and it failed. It was called “The Articles of Confederation.” But that attempt taught them that liberty — and the protection of the rights of all — requires a WILLING restraint on the limit to which we are allowed to exercise our Natural Rights.
Take our example of screaming “FIRE!” in a crowded room. You say it should be allowed because we should be able to rely on everyone to exercise self-control. OK, well, it is a crowded room, so what of those who believe there is a fire — though they cannot see it? Is it not prudent for them to try to escape the room as quickly as possible? Yes, it is! But it is also just as prudent for that same person to assume others will be doing the same, and to realize that there are a limited number of escape routs, and that being first to one of those doors may be the key to survival. And there you go: a panic is created by people acting rationally to preserve their lives by working to be first to an escape from what they assume to be a fire. And, buy your argument, a REASONABLE person should have seen that this would be the result of screaming :FIRE!” yet you would not hold them responsible for the result.
OK, I’ll accept your argument. So, if I scream “$500 MILLION to anyone who kills Mike!” I suppose you will hold me blameless for the result??? After all — IN PRINCIPLE — the two examples are the same in that both should be expected to cause harm to another. So, do you STILL think I should be free to do such a thing? What is I were a multi-billionaire, so that people might actually believe I could pay the price if they killed you. Am I still free to say whatever I want without consequence?
BTW: the same applies to someone screaming for revolution against a duly established government, or plotting subversion of same. Or treason: unless you think it is not my fault if I speak State secrets to a foreign operative, but the fault of that operative for listening. See my point yet? 🙂