Skip to comments.This nation is closer to a Civil War than it has been since 1861.
Posted on 03/30/2013 5:10:24 PM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
This nation is closer to a Civil War than it has been since 1861.
Scary thought, isnt it? Especially to those who have seen war and know from personal experience what it is like. If you are older than 35, would you ever have dreamed that one day, in our lifetimes, our country would be reduced to this? Sometimes it makes me want to cry for America. It makes me want to throw a fit and smash things, rage and scream like a wild man. I want to grab my weapons, march to Washington DC, stand up in front of Congress and the president and say, Now Look, this is the way it is going to be or by God, I will start shooting!
Kind of childish, isnt it? I didnt ask for the crap that is going on today. I dont want it. I am near 60 years old. All I wanted was to live out the rest of my days in peace. I wanted to live out those days in the America that I knew and loved, where one was safe and didnt have to worry about what the government was planning to do to you.
So much for that. Life has changed, as it is supposed to. But it is not a good change. It remains to be seen what good can come from this state of affairs. The one thing I do know is that it is up to us . . . each one of us. . . yes, that means you . . . to bring forth whatever good can be found.
(Excerpt) Read more at dcclothesline.com ...
Note at the very end (after the author has concluded) is very interesting ....
“Nobody WANTS a civil war. But some people are starting to think about the circumstances under which it might happen. Where do we draw the line? “
I don’t think there’s any reason a state can’t leave the union. I always thought the “reason” for the Civil War was the firing on Ft. Sumter. But, if that hadn’t happened, and there was apparently no real reason for it, then I’m certain Lincoln would have come up with his own version of the Tonkin Gulf incident. I think it was Lincoln who wanted the war. But, think about it, if the flyover states left the union, then the union of takers only could not survive. But the union would have most, if not all, of the nukes. They’d use them too. Would Lee or Grant not have used nukes to bring a quicker end to the war? They’d have been remiss in their duties if they hadn’t. If there were a war, it would kill half the population, mostly due to starvation and disease.
yeah, facebook pages. Who on earth would go to FB pages. The government owns fB.
The author pretty much loses all credibility though when he posts a fake NYT headline. The one in the article is a satire, not an actual headline that ever appeared in print.
The difficult part is deciding who the enemy is.
Wherever you put that line, your government is ready and willing to step over it. They will become more and more inflammatory until people start to rebel. Be prepared for the consequences.
Us against the drones. Could happen.
It is the nature of government to grow more oppressive over time, not less. That makes civil war and revolutions all but inevitable, much like gravity makes things fall to the ground. The US is not immune to the natural laws of history and government, as some imagine us to be.
You asked, where do we draw the line?
The answer is when waiting would render us too weak to fight back, and when we have the plans, will, and the means to defend ourselves.
That day is not today, if it is to be tomorrow, we will require much more in the way of perpetration that we thou our states might even be able to defend ourselves both politically and militarily .
But make no illusions dispute how far we have come, we are not there yet. The Evil’s now being perpetrated against us we cannot redress today even if we had to.
It is too apparent that the govt is trying to provoke and instigate a civil war.
Lost credibility with me when he used the term “libtard”. I’m no fan of liberals, but it’s tough to continue reading an article seriously that uses such words.
i think when the armed confiscation starts, of whatever, from law abiding people. that will be a huge trigger because so many will realize those people are THEM. it’s a declaration of war on all of the citizens of this country.
those confiscation orders are equivalent of having to quarter and supply king george’s redcoats. and be disarmed.
it would be a civil war, with one side being for the new world order/globalists, and the other side for a restored, constitutional government.
Did we nuke Vietnam. No. Did we nuke Korea. No. What makes you think FedGov would ever use nukes in a civil war? Franky the "union" wouldn't lay waste to the real estate it wants back....
REVOLT, not rebellion. REVOLT is lawful opposition against illegitimate/ corrupt govt, rebellion is unlawful uprising against legitimate, good government.
he wants to try to enact martial law so the confiscations and executions can begin under a veneer of legality.
There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable and let it come!
I repeat it, sir, let it come.
Patrick Henry, March 1775
What's going on sure sounds familiar.
The fault is ours, says Abe watching from "the other side."
If you could first know where you are and whither you are tending, you could better judge what to do and how to do it. You initiated a policy to tolerate the Marxist-Alinsky radicals and let them rant; not only has it not ceased but was constantly augmented by decades of infiltration and indoctrination. You now have two Americas. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half statist and half free; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.
The question today is either the opponents of statism will arrest the further spread of it and place it on course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become permanent.
Have you no tendency to the latter condition?
Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination piece of machinery, so to speak compounded of the Republican Party hands-across-the-aisle doctrine and the dreadful actions among statism's chief architects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.