Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America's Great Unbridgeable Divide ^ | 09/16/2010 | Gina Miller

Posted on 09/16/2010 5:50:51 AM PDT by scottfactor

For quite a while now, I have been thinking that the United States is in much bigger trouble than many people even imagine. There is a spiritual and ideological divide in our country that cannot be bridged. And since Barack Obama invaded the White House, that divide has grown even wider and has firmly cemented itself in the heart of America.

Over the weekend I read Patrice Lewis' column titled, "A House Divided." Mrs. Lewis writes a weekly article for WorldNetDaily, and I enjoy reading her pieces. She is a "real" woman, grounded in truth and love of our country. Her latest column points out what I firmly believe: that America is divided beyond repair, and the only solution may be to actually, physically divide the country.

Many people will, of course, scoff at the very idea as being impossible. Well, what solution can there be to a nation already divided? The truth of the matter is made clear in the Bible: a house or nation divided against itself cannot stand and will come to desolation. In the Gospels, this was stated by Jesus who had been accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan. Jesus was pointing out the absurdity of the accusations by saying that if Satan is divided against himself, then his kingdom cannot stand. It was Jesus' illustration of a truth that applies in all areas of life: where there is division, there can be no unity, and without unity, there is brokenness. Division leaves our country ripe for destruction.

In making the points of her article, Mrs. Lewis gives a couple of examples of leftist sentiments against some of her writing and against the people who attended Glenn Beck's 8-28 rally. She writes,

"In reading an article speculating about how many people showed up at Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in August, one person said, "Regardless of how many, it was just a huge conglomeration of narrow-minded, racist, homophobic ignorant idiots scared of progress and anything different. … [W]hat's next, a march to prove the earth is flat?"

Another commented, "80,000 nut jobs or 200,000 nut jobs … does it really matter how many nut jobs showed up? They had a choice to go to a nut job rally or stay home [to] molest [their] kids or polish [their] guns."

Do these seem like the type of people with whom we could ever see eye-to-eye? To be fair, conservatives often say things that are just as nasty about progressives. We cannot compromise.

That's why I don't believe this nation can survive much longer as a single entity. Our divisions run deeper and wider than ever before."

I agree with Mrs. Lewis, but before we get down to dividing the country, which would likely mean a brutal civil war, I would hope we would make every effort to defeat liberalism, socialism, progressivism, or whatever you prefer to call the ideology of the left. We will never agree with them, and there is no common ground with them. Regardless of what some people claim, we can't all just get along. Just like with the Islamists, those on the left must be defeated and expelled from their places of power.

The contrast between the two sides within our country has never been more stark. Those of us on the right love our country and want to see it restored to its former greatness. We want to remove much of the overarching power that the government, including the judiciary, now holds. Those on the left hate our country and want to see it transformed into a socialist state with even more power given to an already massive government. Socialism is the transitional step to communism.

Those on the left have made great headway toward their goals. They've been working steadily toward socialism for about a hundred years, so those of us on the right are behind in the fight. Those on the left have infiltrated all our institutions, and it will be very difficult to purge them from the places into which they have installed themselves. Though the task is difficult, we must not give up; the stakes are too high.

Award-winning author and journalist, Joan Swirsky, has written an excellent article detailing the seriousness of our situation here in America. In her piece titled, "The Midterm Elections and the Communist Manifesto,” Ms. Swirsky goes into great detail describing the goals of the left, and they aren't pretty. She writes that the left is working toward nothing short of a Karl Marx communist utopia, and she lays out the agenda that the left has been moving to achieve. She points out that America is in a dangerous place it has never been before. She also includes a very apt rundown of leftist battle plan points from an American version of the Communist Manifesto which was reportedly entered into the Congressional Record in 1963. Some of the 45 goals in it include these,

"-Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

-Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind.

-Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

-Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

-Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

-Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policy-making positions. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

-Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible. Eliminate prayer or any phrase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

-Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

-Infiltrate and gain control of unions.

-Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

-Discredit the family as an institution."

There you go! I would say the left gets an A-plus for their tireless work during the 20th century in accomplishing these long-held, evil goals. The people who hold these goals and beliefs are the ones we must defeat. Those who would impose the above list on our country must be removed from places of power--somehow.

America's great, unbridgeable divide is between those who love God, country and family and those who hate God, country and family. To those on the left, what I say is ridiculously called "hate speech." How ironic! True hate exists on the left and always has. What we hate is evil, and evil hates good; it's really that simple.

I don't want to see our country literally divided, so we must do all we can to defeat those on the left, because we will never agree. We can make a start on November the 2nd.

TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: divided; parties

1 posted on 09/16/2010 5:50:51 AM PDT by scottfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

What this country needs is a Christian religious revival which will sweep the world.

2 posted on 09/16/2010 5:55:35 AM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (An old sailor sends)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine

Religious rivals often occur during severe economic situations.

This nation will probably get a dose of both over the next decade.

3 posted on 09/16/2010 5:59:19 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black; archy; Travis McGee

Perhaps of interest.

4 posted on 09/16/2010 5:59:22 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
Ultimately, this rift cannot be healed because the left and islam demand that conservatives and the Judeo/Christian bloc be crushed into submission.

What is funny about this situation though is that Socialism/Marxism and Islam cannot exist on their own because they are failed, unproductive systems. The Islamic world exists because the productive world buys its oil and socialism exists only because conservatives create the wealth which they work so diligently to co-opt.

My suggestion is that the country be split into two or three separate parts with no exchange of wealth between them.

When there is no money to pay for the entitlements of socialism and islamic welfare, there will be a hue and cry the likes of which the world has never seen.

5 posted on 09/16/2010 6:06:49 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (Imam Rauf may be serving in the 'propaganda and obfuscation' MOS but he is still a terrorist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

The ideology of the Left by its very nature divides.

But I don’t see any reason for the rest of us to accept their division.

Polling clearly shows that there are far more who self-identify as conservative than there are those who self-identify as liberal. IN EVERY SINGLE STATE IN THE UNION. That’s right. Every state.

Don’t accede to the break up of the Union just because the majority’s will is not being reflected in the political arena. Fix the real problem.

6 posted on 09/16/2010 6:08:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Islamists demanding "tolerance"? That's like Hannibal Lecter demanding to decide the menu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

“There is a spiritual and ideological divide in our country that cannot be bridged. And since Barack Obama invaded the White House, that divide has grown even wider and has firmly cemented itself in the heart of America.”

Well, I don’t know. If you are talking politics, the sleeping tiger is awake, but just snarling and prowling around in the cage that was quietly erected while it slept.

So who is going to unlock the cage? Who is going to get the tiger to attack the cage builders and can it be done by the tiger?

Spiritually - I don’t know if God will forgive us for legalized child sacrifice. That’s a toughy because when Israel did it (find it in the Old Testament) He didn’t forgive them. They were also doing other things but we are doing all those things too and the judgment was only postponed by repentance on the part of the king. So unless we outlaw divorce and all sexual sin, abortion, and the other things that He hates, I don’t see Him having any other choice but to love us and rebuke us, like any truly loving parent.

7 posted on 09/16/2010 6:09:48 AM PDT by huldah1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies
My suggestion is that the country be split into two or three separate parts

Hell no. Those who hate our free republic's founding principles, and through the introduction of their foreign notions seek America's destruction, CAN'T HAVE ONE SQUARE INCH OF OUR TERRITORY.

8 posted on 09/16/2010 6:10:48 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Islamists demanding "tolerance"? That's like Hannibal Lecter demanding to decide the menu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
As far as I can tell, they already have Vermont and Michigan.

The point, however, isn't about territory. It is about building a firewall between socialists/islamists and the wealth of conservatives. Their ideas collapse without access to what is not theirs.

If wealthy Liberals wish to give away their wealth to socialists and islamists, they are welcome to do so...just no more redistribution of wealth by government mandate.

9 posted on 09/16/2010 6:19:59 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (Imam Rauf may be serving in the 'propaganda and obfuscation' MOS but he is still a terrorist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SonOfDarkSkies

In the end, it is about territory. And who governs it.

Our problem isn’t liberals. There just ain’t enough of them. It’s conservatives who won’t exercise their true power on a principled, wise, basis.

10 posted on 09/16/2010 6:29:22 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Islamists demanding "tolerance"? That's like Hannibal Lecter demanding to decide the menu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

The point of the article is not to accept division but to defeat the left.

I know we’re the vast majority—those of us on the right.

11 posted on 09/16/2010 6:48:10 AM PDT by WXRGina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
It’s conservatives who won’t exercise their true power on a principled, wise, basis.

Then those folks aren't really conservatives, but enemy collaborators (liberals and islamists being the enemy).

I agree that there aren't enough true liberals, but when you lump the liberals together with their "conservative" enablers and the enabling media, they have sufficient numbers and power to effectively destroy the confidence of those who invest in our economy...thereby destroying that economy!

As a semi-retired investment banker who consults with the financial and real estate industries (such as they are now), I regularly speak with folks who tell me their institutions and their clients' businesses are teetering on the edge of a precipice.

We are not lost yet, but Obama and his ilk must be removed from power soon if we are to make a comeback.

12 posted on 09/16/2010 6:48:39 AM PDT by SonOfDarkSkies (Imam Rauf may be serving in the 'propaganda and obfuscation' MOS but he is still a terrorist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor
When one talks favorably of the division of our Union they are surrendering to the revolutionaries who have been working to destroy America for a century.

Again, I say HELL NO.

George Washington, from his farewell address:

The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters, much pains will be taken, many artifices employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole.

The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and, while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort, and, what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength, or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious.

While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the Union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter may endeavor to weaken its bands.

In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our Western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head; they have seen, in the negotiation by the Executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the Senate, of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at that event, throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the General Government and in the Atlantic States unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi; they have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain, and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the Union by which they were procured ? Will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such there are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens?

To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the Constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

13 posted on 09/16/2010 6:59:35 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Islamists demanding "tolerance"? That's like Hannibal Lecter demanding to decide the menu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina
The point of the article is not to accept division but to defeat the left.

Point well taken.

I've been responding, as I always do, more against the blase attitude I see some take towards the proposed breaking up of our Union.

14 posted on 09/16/2010 7:03:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Islamists demanding "tolerance"? That's like Hannibal Lecter demanding to decide the menu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Yes, it’s easy to talk about dividing the country, but that’s NOT what we want to happen here.

As I wrote in the article, “I don’t want to see our country literally divided, so we must do all we can to defeat those on the left, because we will never agree.”

15 posted on 09/16/2010 7:10:00 AM PDT by WXRGina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: WXRGina

Thank you, Gina.

16 posted on 09/16/2010 7:16:56 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Islamists demanding "tolerance"? That's like Hannibal Lecter demanding to decide the menu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: scottfactor

If a split occurred, it wouldn’t last long. Because after about five years of the socialist America, millions of “liberals” would be crossing the border into conservative America. Or trying to cross...we might have to erect walls. Most Dem-voters are mushy-headed people who don’t pay attention. Having a government that would intrude into every aspect of their lives would be too much for most of them. After five years, the socialist America would only have about fifty million residents. And those numbers would diminish drastically year by year as the hapless inmates realize what an awful country they chose.

17 posted on 09/16/2010 7:26:39 AM PDT by driftless2 (For long-term happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Free South Korea vs. the socialist paradise of North Korea, at night:

18 posted on 09/16/2010 7:49:48 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Islamists demanding "tolerance"? That's like Hannibal Lecter demanding to decide the menu.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Citizen Tom Paine
What this country needs is a Christian religious revival which will sweep the world.

Actually, no.

Revivals tend to be sporadic spasms of volatile religious enthusiasm, that often open the door to demonic activity. Revivals are often sought by those who are trying to substitute experiences for obedience, and therefore lead to antinomianism.

A reformation takes a century or so to get up to speed, and leaves the world permanently changed afterward. A reformation has been going on in the USA for three decades, now, a quiet, under-the-radar spiritual movement that stresses obedience to God in an area where for too long rebellion against God has been the norm. Even among Christians. God is at work to frustrate the designs of the evildoers -- and those who embrace His yoke are finding blessings beyond anything they imagined.

Bottom line: it is becoming more obvious every day that it is sinful to render unto Caesar that which is God's the children entrusted to our care. Those who politely refuse to participate in the American state church (public education) represent God's token of future favor for our country.

19 posted on 09/16/2010 7:56:17 AM PDT by RJR_fan (Christians need to reclaim and excel in the genre of science fiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RJR_fan

I disagree that seperation will require war.

What is required is for states to take back their power and begin to nullify Federal laws, regulations and programs that exceeed the enumerated powers. If enough states take that step there will be nothing that FedGov can do, and the Union can be returned to a Republic of Republics, as was its original design.

People who say “not one inch” would require that somehow we take over the entire USA and force conservatism on people. But the truth is that places like New York and Vermont don’t want conservatism.

By making the states soverign again we can have both a preserved Union and at least some states that reflect Conservative values.

20 posted on 09/16/2010 9:38:08 AM PDT by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson