Posted on 06/30/2014 9:45:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark
After recieving a bit of encouragement, I'm starting up a CWII ping-list.
Pings will be toward stories that might be the spark, probably with an emphasis on big-government overreach.
“Perhaps so; but nobody would get the far more descriptive WFSII.”
The War for Southern Independence (WFSI) has nothing to do with current events, which involve all of the United States and not just the Southern rebel states. So, a Second War for Southern Independence (WFSII or more properly WFSI-II does not describe anything currently happening. Not to mention, War of the Rebellion (WOTR) is the official term and acronym accurately describing the original nature and outcome of the events.
Furthermore, talk of insurrection and rebellion is inappropriate no matter how criminal the Obama regime is in fact, because there are a multitude of lawful and Constitutional means for holding the criminals accountable for their subversion of the Constitution and the U.S. Government. The American Revolutionary War was conducted by lawful colonial governments as a necessary last recourse to the unlawful acts of the British monarchy and Parliament. The War of the Rebellion, also known as the American Civil War, was an unlawful and unjustified insurrection and rebellion.
“CWII” is widely understood to mean “Civil War Two”.
Add me. Not interested in starting anything, but if some idiot is going to start it I want early warning. (And I do mean idiot: my “the nuts move first” theory observes that while the rational and wise are debating the proper & perfect conditions for conflict, some bozo is going to just haul off and start it ill-advised and irreversible.)
You didn't read the description, did you?
WFS II is War for Federal Supremacy two.
Furthermore, talk of insurrection and rebellion is inappropriate no matter how criminal the Obama regime is in fact, because there are a multitude of lawful and Constitutional means for holding the criminals accountable for their subversion of the Constitution and the U.S. Government.
I disagree — to make the Constitution only applicable to the people, and not restrictive to the government, is to make it at best a suicide pact and at worst a tool for tyranny. (Of course it is tyranny when a law applies only to the little people, or selectively based on political connections.) To assert that such government must be always considered legitimate is to repudiate the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The American Revolutionary War was conducted by lawful colonial governments as a necessary last recourse to the unlawful acts of the British monarchy and Parliament. The War of the Rebellion, also known as the American Civil War, was an unlawful and unjustified insurrection and rebellion.
I very much disagree here — the American Civil War was, at its core, about the subjugation of States to the will of the Federal government. That the States were denied the ability to leave the union, which by strict reading of the 10th amendment must have been among the powers not delegated. (There is some argument, however, that the Articles of Confederation could still be cited.)
Or, to put it in more modern terms — Nevada is more than 75% federal land, if the State said f-ck this, you own nothing
to the federal government, would that be legitimate? Or is the state on equal footing with those states which are not majorily federal land? Moreover, what is to stop the Federal gov from commandeering the rest of the land? If that were to happen, of what use would the State government be? (And what jurisdiction would it have?)
Added.
Me! Me too! I wanna be on that thar list too.
Done.
Sign me up, please.
Done.
Thanks...
I'm still AD...and a lot of us are starting to question "At what point do we defend the constitution like we said we would in our oath?"
Never had this question when Reagan was my CIC.
The framers would disagree with you. That's the VERY reason they gave us the 2nd.
They understood that there may be a time when no other way will be possible.
Hm, I questioned that back in `08 -- the replies I got when I brought up my concerns of the NBC-requirements and Obama's questionable origins to my superiors were not good; it became apparent that the Army-as-an-institution (same with the other services, but I'm Army because it's better ;)) had no intention of holding to its oath to the Constitution.
The treatment of that Lt Col, Rakin [IIRC], only proved this to be true.
So, when people claim it can't happen here
or that [active duty] military men won't turn on the civilian population I take it with a grain of salt.
Yes, I believe there would be a good chunk that would reject flat-out illegal orders — but, on the other hand, such orders may be terminal of a sequence of reasonable and otherwise lawful orders. (Also, a large military unit would be helpful in the response to a false-flag operation providing security and relief [and it would work best if they were oblivious to the false-flag nature].)
Please add me to your ping list. Thanks.
Please add me to the list. Thanks!
Done.
It’s your pinglist,
but I still say it’s RevWIII, not CWII... :)
Want on?
Thanks, but no thanks - I’ll just look for the threads.
(I find pinglists annoying)
I believe this will only happen when the economy crashes and it becomes clear that there is no retirement waiting for me at the end of my 30 years (which is only 2.5 years away)...and once that happens, then maybe.
But just to defend the constitution? Nope. Most people who took the oath did so because it was a means to that payday...and not because of something they really believe in and can articulate. I would be pleased if it was 50/50...but I think that's stretching it a bit.
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.