In 1765, The Sons of Liberty formed. The first act that was widely known by The Sons of Liberty was on August 4th, 1765, when an effigy of Andrew Oliver was found hanging in a tree on Newbury Street in Boston. By 1766, the Sons of Liberty had such support that British Governor's had gone into hiding. The day was April 19th, 1775, when the "shot heard around the world" rang out in Lexington. The day was July 4th, 1776, when citizens wrote the Declaration of Independence. In 1780, after British forces captured Charleston, South Carolina, Francis Marion led a rag-tag force against the British. Marion was so successful using guerrilla tactics, the British named him "The Swamp Fox", due to their inability to either capture, or defeat him. In 1783, the revolt was over and war won, but the Articles of Confederation weren't sufficient to keep America together. On September 17th, 1787, after much debate in the Federalist Papers, the Constitution of the United States was signed.
This is just a brief history and timeline of the American Revolution, but, the actions are as applicable today as they were then; protest, activism, violence, and finally all-out war.
Now... meet me after the fold as we fast-forward to the year 2000
It was December 12th, 2000, when the Supreme Court intervened into the recount of Florida's election ballots. The case was decided in favor of George Bush, the electoral process ended, and thus we begin.
January 13th, 2001 - 554 professors of law from 120 Universities sign a letter to the New York Times declaring there opposition to the Supreme Court decision.
January 24th, 2001 - 11 members of the Berkeley Law faculty protest the Supreme Courts decision.
Protests continue in America, from anti-war protests to anti-Bush protests. These protests are not limited now to America, however.
Who pushed for the Valerie Plame investigation? The CIA itself
All of Washington and the country has been buzzing for the last few days over a report that the CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate the White House regarding a matter of important national security. The wife of a former ambassador named Joseph Wilson, it has been alleged, was 'outed' as an active CIA agent to columnist Robert Novak by this White House in an act of political revenge.
Who was it that let us know the Bush Administration manipulated climate intelligence? The government scientists themselves.
Two advocacy groups released a survey to the panel in which a number of government climate scientists said either that their research had been edited to change the meaning or that they were told to delete references to "global warming" or "climate change" from reports.
Who brought Abu Ghraib to light? Joe Darby, a a reserve soldier.
(CBS) Exposing the truth has not been easy for Joe Darby. He turned in the pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq – pictures he discovered purely by accident.
Who has spoken out against the Iraq War? Many, to include armed forces General's, either newly retired or already retired, in an unprecedented move.
A growing number of retired generals are publicly opposing US conduct of the war in Iraq, breaking a decades-old tradition of not criticizing ongoing military operations.
Who spoke out against torture? (h/t to Kimberley in comments section), military JAG officers.
- (U) Finally, the use of the more extreme interrogation techniques simply is not how the U.S. armed forces have operated in recent history. We have taken the legal and moral "high-road" in the conduct of our military operations regardless of how others may operate. Our forces are trained in this legal and moral mindset beginning the day they enter active duty. It should be noted that law of armed conflict and code of conduct training have been mandated by Congress and emphasized since the Viet Nam conflict when our POWs were subjected to torture by their captors. We need to consider the overall impact of approving extreme interrogation techniques as giving official approval and legal sanction to the application of interrogation techniques that U.S. forces have consistently been trained are unlawful.
JACK L. RIVES,
Major General, USAF,
Deputy Judge Advocate General.
Who spoke out from the EPA? EPA officials.
Martin is the second important official to resign in protest of EPA policies and politics this year.
Even local communities have now taken activist measures to impeach President Bush.
BOSTON (Reuters) - More than 30 Vermont towns passed resolutions on Tuesday seeking to impeach President Bush, while at least 16 towns in the tiny New England state called on Washington to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.
And what about violence?
August 22nd, 2002 - Police fire upon protesters in Portland, Oregon. here
April 7th, 2003 - Police fire upon protester's in Oakland, California. here
November 25th, 2003 - Police fire upon protester's in Miami, Florida. here
August 21st, 2005 - Police attack protesters in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. here
March 10th, 2007 - Police fire upon protesters in Tacoma, Washington. here
Violence by our own government on its own citizens is now all too common practice.
The support for the Iraq War dwindles daily, yet, President Bush refuses to heed the call of 67% of the citizenry. His enabler's in Congress suppress debate, vote of the issue, and when that fails, they fail to heed the call of America. Groups such as VoteVets and Iraq&Afghanistan Veteran's of America continue to lobby Congress.
We can safely say that almost everyone has revolted against President Bush - from U.S. Attorney's such as Sharon Eubanks, to climate scientists, General's, CIA agents, legal scholars, the majority of the public, local community governments - the list goes on. We can safely say that there has been plenty of activism in the United States against President Bush, his administration, his policies, the war in Iraq, yet, they go unheeded. We can safely say that the violence has begun already - not from the citizenry, but the government sworn to protect them.
If we follow the timeline, events, and actions that characterized the American Revolution against British tyranny, are we now heading to armed conflict against our own government? I submit to you, the reader, just some of the charges brought against the British by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence:
"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers."
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."
"For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:"
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:"
"For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:"
"He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation."
Look at the Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act, the use of Blackwater private security in New Orleans and Iraq, the unprecedented level of signing statements, military tribunals in a foreign country, his dismissal of the powers of the Judiciary and Legislative branches when they dissent from his wishes, the establishment of the Dept. of Homeland Security and usage of the FBI, law enforcement and military to spy on protestors, the loss of habeas corpus, the politicization of Dept. of Justice to block inquiry into or lessen the effects of trial on certain individuals/entities. Compare that to the above from the Declaration of Independence. I leave you, the reader, with this warning from our forefathers in the Federalist Paper #87:
"The constitutional rights of the people to representative government free from single interest "same hands" control, or from control by the members of a favored class, supersedes the rights of the members of any single profession or favored class, to collectively acquire that control." Opponents deny the validity of this constitutional interpretation. If they are right, the underlying problem caused by the harm of single interest control would remain in place. That would indicate that the Constitution as written was defective. The remedy would then lie with the ballot box, a constitutional amendment, or if all else failed, another revolution.