Virginia GOP candidate raises specter of civil war

[Originally posted at: Daily Kos]

Whether or not you’ve seen video of Catherine Crabill, a Republican nominee for Virginia House of Delegates, saying conservatives will be forced to “the bullet box” if they can’t win at “the ballot box,” hold onto your seat — because there’s more:

(You can see the full video of Catherine Crabill’s speech at Daily Kos TV.)

Crabill (who believes the U.S. government orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombing) claimed the Obama administration is pursuing legislation that will turn it into “the thought police” and wants to put Americans in “the chains of slavery.”

Crabill’s plan to stop Obama? Follow Texas Governor Rick Perry’s lead and declare Virginia’s sovereignty from the United States of America:

What would I do as a state delegate? … I would like to follow in the footsteps of the great state of Texas and Governor Rick Perry … They were reasserting their tenth amendment right to sovereignty.

[Read the rest of this post at: Daily Kos]


About Rodibidably

Jeff Randall is a frequent volunteer for free-thought organizations, including the Center For Inquiry – DC. Having been blogging since January 2008, he decided that a community of bloggers would be an interesting new experience (or at the very least a fun way to annoy his friends into reading his posts more frequently). Since finding out about about the existence of, and then joining, the atheist/skeptic community in 2007 he has been committed to community activism, critical thinking in all aspects of life, science, reason, and a fostering a secular society.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Virginia GOP candidate raises specter of civil war

  1. jonolan says:

    She has a point; hate crimes laws are, in cold fact, thought crimes law because they criminal specific motives which are thoughts.

    If it takes violence to change that, I’ll be somewhat saddened. I’ll still do my part as an American though in purging this nation of the evil we’ve allowed to breed within it.

    • Rodibidably says:

      I tend to go back and forth on the idea of hate crime laws myself. But if you agree or disagree with the idea you should accept that all “hate crimes” should be treated the same. She seems to have no prblem with the CURRENT hate crime laws, she only complains when there she is pre-disposed against a group that may be gaining protection. And she talks about a violent revolution or succesion as if those are patriotic ideals when one disagrees with the DEMOCRATICALLY elected administration.

      • jonolan says:

        I don’t know if she was against the previous hate crimes legislation or not.

        As for revolution – democratically elected or not, if the administration goes too far wrong it’s the duty of Americans to removed it – by armed force if needs be.

      • Rodibidably says:

        Apparently you don’t understand the concept of democracy…

        If in 2012 the people want the current administration out of power, there is a simple way to remove them from power…

        If that fails, those who lost, need to accept that their preference is not in the majority…

        And, if you believe that every American (excluding those in the military) could take on the US military, you’re high… If 300million Americans tried to stage a coup and take on the US Government, their would be 300 million less Americans, and the government would remain in control…

      • jonolan says:

        I understand democracy. I also seem to understand a citizen’s duty in a democracy better than you do.

        Id the government endangers the fabric of democracy, it must be removed by the citizenry, irrespective of the methods used.

        As for the idea that the US military can defeat the US people – we’re in disagreement. Since I’m ex-SpecOps I think my opinion on that matter should, at least, be considered.

      • Rodibidably says:

        You believe a citizen’s duty is to violently overthrow a democratically elected government?

        I think we’ll end up disagreeing on that one…

        As for the military vs the public, perhaps I’m wrong, but my money is on the highly trained soldiers with tanks and bombers over the rednecks with rifles and shotguns…

      • jonolan says:

        I think it is the citizenry’s duty to overthrow the government if and when said government gets too far out of line from guiding principles of the nation.

        Obviously peaceful measures are too be attempted first; we do have laws after all and a process for redress. If peaceful measures are ineffective though, then violent measures must be used.

      • Rodibidably says:

        And who decides when the government has gone too far? You? A nutjob Republican from VA? Or a majority of citizens which elected those currently in power?

      • jonolan says:

        That’s always the question isn’t it?

        In the mid 1700s a few angry men are said to have made that decision.

        In the mid 1800s a few Governors and Legislators are said to have made that decision.

        In both cases, however, it came down to the support of the people.

      • Rodibidably says:

        The difference is that in Nov the people had their voices heard and elected the administration. Unlike the previous administration, Obama has not lied to Congress & the American people. For a small minority that are bitter over losing an election to attempt to overthrow that democratically elected government is nothing short of treason. It is not the will of the people, we have the administration we choose!

      • jonolan says:

        Actually Obama has done little other than lie, but that is largely immaterial to my point.

        Elected or not, if the administration grossly oversteps its authority, they need to be removed by whatever means are necessary up to and including – as a last resort – revolution.

        In many sad ways we’re closer to that now under Obama than we’ve been in over a hundred years. It’s only now, in a response to the federal power grab, that a dozen states have felt the need to pass state sovereignty legislation.

        The last time the states and the federal government got this antagonistic we had a civil war…

        So it goes beyond your thoughts of a bitter minority.

      • Rodibidably says:

        Apparently we live in quite different versions of reality. In the one in which I live, the previous president, “W”, was the single most divisive President since the Civil War, and the current President, “Barack Hussein Obama”, has started to bring the country back together.

        I’m curious what other differences there are in your world? Is the sky blue there? Is grass green? Is Australia in the Northern Hemisphere? Do dogs quack and ducks bark?

      • jonolan says:

        I could ask you the same questions.

        Without going into comparative motivations, since anything along those lines would be subjective guesswork, the situation you’re complaining about never got any traction under W or any other recent POTUS.

        Neither did State Sovereignty. I don;t see where an objective reality supports your assertions.

      • Rodibidably says:

        I would argue that it’s due to the fact that one part (Dem) tends to not have a hissy fit when it loses power, while the other (GoP) tends to see any loss of power as a sign of the coming apocalypse (since a good number of them have convinced themselves that they are chosen by god to lead).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s