The 'Outlaw Lawmakers' Party | Who Invited You?

another name for lawmakers who act as if they are above the law (i.e., the Constitution):

How equivalent is, "Outlaw", to "Rebel"?
The same -- or different?

A rebel may or may not be an outlaw.
Think, Snowden or Assange.
Or a rebel may indeed be an outlaw.
Think Mitch McConnell and the other forty-six Republican Senators who violated the Constitutionally structured separation of the branches of government
when they told the government of Iran not to take the President's treaty initiative to limit weapons development by Iran seriously.
Think our "guest outlaw", "Lady Macbeth", below.

Think, Paul Ryan, who is (or by time you read this, was recently) arguing before the Supreme Court that President Obama's executive orders should be overturned -- a clear case of the Legislative Branch of government overstepping its bounds by attempting to use the Judicial Branch to tell the Executive Branch what to do.

The name, "Tea Party", refers to an act of rebellion:
The Boston Tea Party.

The slogan, "Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny".

That slogan referred to the British Tax on Tea (important, right?). 

It was the principle of the thing. With no right to a say in their own destiny as colonies, controlled by the English Monarchy, required to house Soldiers of the Crown in their own houses, and being required to pay taxes, it was the principle of the thing.

Those of the Republican "Tea Party" have rebelled against the Constitution of the U.S.A.

As the Constitution of the U.S.A. is the Law against which all other laws are validated,
by rebelling against the Constitution (or by distorting its intent)
they rebel against the law.

By rebelling against the law, they act as outlaws. If that doesn't seem to be true or significant, it's because you are used to being stepped on, to the degree that you think, "This is all as it should be."

They who call themselves, the Tea Party --
have supported taxation without representation, because they represent Oligarcical interests and not their constituents:

They support control of the economic destiny of America, 
the concentration of wealth,
and so control of the political process,
by an oligarchy -- an alternative form of Monarchy.

The Tea Party Republicans have 
  • withheld and sought to withdraw support from humanitarian and developmental programs that would serve a favorable destiny for the U.S.A.
  • and worked in service to an ethically-approved, judicially-sanctioned and monomaniacal program of unbridled accumulation of power and wealth, winner-take-all -- like a game of Monopoly. Abuse of Capitalism. Perverted Capitalism.

Does that make the Tea Party Republicans, "rebels"
  • traitors?
  • outlaws?
  • people run by primitive, sub-conscious motivations without intelligence -- to the detriment of many to benefit a few -- and themselves?
  • or just immature, adolescently rebellious, unable to tell the difference between "for the good" and "for evil" ("between good and evil)"?

The answer casts a certain light on their use of the name, "Tea Party" -- doesn't it.

The Constitution of the U.S.A. was written to

". . . secure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty . . ."
How's that been workin' out?

Beware of adolescently rebellious, arrogant, or righteous  lawmakers who serve
the Monarchy of Oligarchy and its primitive "power" agenda.

"The price of liberty
is eternal vigilance."

No comments:

Post a Comment