Posted on 10/20/2003 9:31:19 PM PDT by kattracks
FReeppost re: Tom Chittum's Civil War II "The Comming Breakup of America" A Checklist, *here*.
'fraid so. Sam, you want on our ping list regarding the countdown?
-archy-/-
Please feel free to include me in this list
Are the issue dividing left and right more severe than those in the 60s around the time of Vietnam? Maybe. But that didn't lead to a civil war. In fact we were much closer then based on the fact that there were multiple leftist organizations which had renounced politics and explicity set out to fight. These include the Black Liberation Army, the Black Pathers, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, and others. Despite several hundreds of fanatics willing to fight, backed by tens of thousands of leftists, they failed to inculcate the civil war they wanted. The vast overwhelming majority on both sides would not support their radical proposition that politics had failed. The left was able, eventually, and in part due to the fear the militant left engendered, to force many changes in society. Changes which still anger conservatives and have greatly contributed to the deep division the author sites.
Yet despite these differences I see little or no broad support for the military option on either side. In the first Civil War state after state passed resolutions in their legislature leaving the Union. These were often followed up by plebecites among all voters that re-affirmed the majority desire of these citizens to break away. Millions volunteered (or were drafted) to fight in the ensuing civil war.
I don't see the analogy yet. I believe today is more like the sixties. Perhaps a few people feel it is time to give up on politics, by they are a tiny minority. The only domestic war-like act in recent years was the McVeigh bombing. It was roundly denounced by citizens and politicians of every stripe. It would be hard to find one organized group that had anything good to say about it. On the left most of the violence of the last few decades has been largely symbolic violence against property, and again the majority of leftists have denounced it. The only group that has actually caused anything remotely resembling a civil war are the LA King rioters. But that was clearly a riot, and not overly motivated by the positions the author discusses on either the left or right.
In summary while we are clearly deeply divided politically I feel Mr. Prager has completely failed to make his case that this is even a percursor to civil war. His statement that it already IS a civil war is pure hyperbole. It made for a nice provocitive title, but there is no evidence submitted to prove that his bold assertion is true. It is not, and we are not in the midst of a civil war.
I think he was being too easy on the left here. I'd say:
The left believes America was responsible for the Cold War and Israel is responsible for Middle East violence.
BTW, if you are going to say the right uses language just a violent please cite sources. TIA.
What about those "I hope the war is a disaster, it will help the Democrats" comments from the likes of Democrat stalwarts like Ellen Ratner and salon's Gary Kamiya?
Ellen Ratner's pre-war comments, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30414 or http://bulldogbulletinarchives.lhhosting.com/page32B1.htm
Fox News Channel's "Your World" Dec. 28, 2002
Gary Kamiya of salon.com, April 11, 2003 column.
You say, "the majority of leftists have denounced [symbolic violence against property]." I'd love to see a source or two. TIA.
You are correct about the 1960s groups. But my recollection was that darn few knew the intent of those groups. Guys like H. Rap Brown, Newton, et al. were presented on the "news" as civil rights activists and victims of "lawn order" racism, the term used to ridicule law and order concerns.
"Anti-war" groups chanting "Ho Chi Min is going to win" and waving their blue, red, and yellow "protest banner" (as the press called the Viet Cong flag) were featured nightly. So well presented by the press that North Vietnam general Giap honored the American press by calling them his best guerilla.
Yes, I remember those days. The difference today is we have a free press. In those days you had to depend upon limited circulation publications to get news. Many of us knew what was happening, the vast majority of Americans thought we were nuts. The majority accepted the sanitized images of the the leftist pukes. The New Left took over control of the Democrat Party in the 1970s driving traditional Democrats outof the party. Things cooled a bit. The Third Way was invented.
This is not a civil war in the 19th century model. This is modeled after the Revolution. It is not necessarily against the government either. It is similar in that "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such [evil]. . ."
Those abuses include PC, treason against our sovereignty by deferring to internationalists, the leftist pukes' argument that America is the "root cause of most of the world's problems," that our military is the biggest threat to world peace, and many more offenses listed here many times in the past.
"The left believe the 2nd amendment is an anachronism and an embarrasment, and has no validity in today's world. The right believes that the 2nd amd is a critical bulwark of the defense of freedom, and against tyranny."
Or:
"The left believes that access to firearms make people kill people; the right believes that firearms are only a tool, to be used for either good or evil."
When a large part of your nation (including much of the opposition leadership and most of the prestige media) is secretly cheering for the bloody defeat of your military during a time of war, you are in a Cold Civil War.
When they are working to subjugate American sovereignty to the rule of the U.N., you are in a Cold Civil War.
When they are working for "open borders," driver's licenses for illegals, amnesty for illegals etc with the intention of adding to the voter rolls of the opposition party, you are in a Cold Civil War.
Those are just three examples.
What could turn the Cold Civil War hot? What happened in Florida in the 2000 election was a harbinger of things to come.
If massive vote fraud occurs in a presidential election (can you say "touchscreen voting?") that could well trigger a Hot Civil War. >{? Another trigger could be a manufactured event, such as the bogus "Stadium Massacre" described in my novel.
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.