Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CIVIL WAR'S A-BREWIN'
WorldNetDaily ^ | 1-11-13 | Matt Barber

Posted on 01/11/2013 8:55:59 PM PST by jimluke01

A pretty, young, auburn-haired woman – mid-20s – drove down a lonely country road somewhere in Oklahoma. Appearing in her rearview mirror, at the back windshield, were two menacing orbs of light floating amid ashen dusk. The guttural roar of a souped-up big block shook the tiny Volkswagen Rabbit as a van-load of inbred thugs lurched left and drew alongside her. A ponytailed passenger taunted inaudibly and blew foul kisses between crude hand gestures. He pointed for her to pull over as the van repeatedly swerved dangerously close.

Inside the car a man, asleep in the reclining passenger seat, was startled awake by the commotion. He rose and darted his head about, calmly assessing the situation. This only spurred the evil-bent goons. As they ramped-up efforts to run the car off the road, the man reached in the glove box, withdrew a military-grade, semi-automatic handgun – an “assault weapon,” if you will – and, with intentionality and great theatre, leaned across his young bride, pointing the gun out the open bay and directly between dirt bag’s booze-flushed eyes.

Van vanished amid a plume of gray smoke as wheels locked, tires screeched and “assault vehicle” fishtailed – jerking to a halt with taillights aglow skyward from the ditch.

Not a shot was fired.

(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: amendment; control; gun; obama

1 posted on 01/11/2013 8:56:05 PM PST by jimluke01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

I love a happy ending.


2 posted on 01/11/2013 9:06:30 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

Continuing from the article:

“Back at the couple’s rural farmhouse, two boys – boys who would not be orphaned that night – played. We most likely played – my brother Pete and I – with assault rifles fashioned from sticks. I always love to hear Dad retell the story. He does it with an ornery, satisfied grin. “No one’s taking my guns,” he’ll say.

This might be a good time for me to add that no one’s taking my guns either. Period. And if Dianne Feinstein orders me from her lofty perch on the left-coast to retroactively register them with some federal autocracy, I think I might just forget I even have them. Tens of millions of law-abiding, God-fearing Americans just like me and Dad, I suspect, feel the same way.”


3 posted on 01/11/2013 9:12:57 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear ARMED DRONES, shall not be infringed


4 posted on 01/11/2013 9:19:29 PM PST by bunkerhill7 (rc yup!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bunkerhill7

I had a bad day today. found out the hard way just how difficult taking poorly interpretations of the 2a and exercising them...

I repeat, YOU CANNOT arm a grouchy half hibernating bear...!


5 posted on 01/11/2013 9:26:42 PM PST by Eye of Unk (AR2 2013 is the American Revolution part 2 of 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

Cross post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2977281/posts


6 posted on 01/11/2013 9:28:04 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

It sounds like the driver of the van was trying to kill somebody.
(shrug) I wonder if in a similar situation I would have fired.

And then drove on...


7 posted on 01/11/2013 9:43:41 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

It will take years to put-together the political, and military forces to wage a Civil War. If Washington passed an act tomorrow banning all guns, and all of us agreed it was unconstitutional, but The Federal Employees in black-robes upheld their appointees desires anyway.(As they usually do in all matters being little more than hand picked Employees.)

We still would be in no position to fight for our rights. We would instead have to evade the unjust law as individuals, and if we were successful in that capacities we would have no drive toward war. If we were not successful in that capacities we would very soon have no means for war.

Either way the Unconstitutional usurpation would stand for lack of ability or compelling will. You must never forget the words of our forefathers. Men are indeed more predisposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than right themselves by the risks & costs of revolution.

If there is to be a revolution to liberate us from this oppression it will have to have been in the planning long before any such move was ever made. The will would have to have been there in the whole of the population of the State for years so much so that the legislator should be visablty willing to resist.

Indeed the very situation which we describe is almost invariably a product of a population at odds(political war) with an there population elsewhere. In which case the real war would not so ironically be simply an extension of that political war.

Now this could very well describe the situation as now exist and is developing in theses United States. But while we are quickly approaching that point where it may become violent, nobody could doubt that we have yet to reach such a fevered pinch of Civil War. There will be smaller scale political violence first, some of which might lead to a more defused situation such as the assassination of President Obama.

Others will simply inflame the population further into taking up arms. Overall however the great bulk of event’s and actions being driven by the political greed of Congress and the Federal executive branch will tend to drive us both towards greater mutual antagonistic animosity. Thus the end result of separation and/or Civil War.

I don’t really see a politically likely path out of this. Our political discourse has been building towards this for decades. Everything from the effective arbitrary lawlessness of Washington to the unsustainable debt, to the political patronage systems all have their substance build upon a foundation of antagonistic competition, with ends set in the natural limits of debt, resources, and tolerable power.

Throw into the mix an already long established history of sectionalism, and you have not only the cause of war but the means of war.


8 posted on 01/11/2013 10:36:11 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

A Civil War could start very quickly—but it would have to come from the states—I see Texas as the leader. There would need to be a leader arise as well—a recognized and honored person—I believe it would be an old White Guy with white hair, someone trusted. Such men do exist—one just left the house—last name Paul. Others are out there as well. It would start small—and grow like the Christos War in Mexico in the 1920s. It would be ugly and bitter. It would be the end of the US as a great power—but maybe that would not be so bad.


9 posted on 01/11/2013 11:05:26 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade
"A Civil War could start very quickly—but it would have to come from the states—I see Texas as the leader."

I agree, except Texas would not go on a military offensive. They would not repeat an assault on Ft. Sumter, but they would defend against a Federal gun grab, etc.

It would be wise for the Free States to form some sort of association now, to organize strategy for dealing with the advancing Tyranny, even if there is no secession.

10 posted on 01/11/2013 11:36:41 PM PST by UnwashedPeasant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Never fight with an old man. He will just kill you and leave you in the ditch to rot.

By an old man who is strictly without remorse. None at all.

You have one bucket for crap and one for money. I’ve had all the crap I need or want.

Clark is my hero.


11 posted on 01/12/2013 12:20:46 AM PST by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

Some have and soon others will figure out they can’t get the guns and that they don’t have to. All they gotta do is stOp the ammo.


12 posted on 01/12/2013 12:27:32 AM PST by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant
" It would be wise for the Free States to form some sort of association now, to organize strategy for dealing with the advancing Tyranny, even if there is no secession. "

The Constitution tells us how the free states should proceed. It's called an article five Constitutional Convention. We need 34 states to trigger it and 38 to ratify changes. Just a few amendments or changes to amendments and it's OVER for this out of control federal government.

It would take some work but it's far more likely to succeed than a brutal civil war or succession.

13 posted on 01/12/2013 12:56:30 AM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

I disagree about how it would roll out. If we have a civil war it will look like Northern Ireland on a continental scale. Informal, amorphous and anonymous, with nasty atrocities on both sides, and some of them false flag.


14 posted on 01/12/2013 1:00:28 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

“Some have and soon others will figure out they can’t get the guns and that they don’t have to. All they gotta do is stOp the ammo.”

During WWII, Mao Tse Tung advised his guerrillas that the enemy would bring them weapons and ammunition.


15 posted on 01/12/2013 1:02:29 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

http://www.grassley.senate.gov/

Write that rat Grassley. He’s waffling.


16 posted on 01/12/2013 1:32:11 AM PST by ZULU (See video: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-first-siege-of-vienna.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

Constitutional Convention Question's

Parliamentarian Ref: Constitutional Convention analysis: Constitutional Convention Question's: Am I wrong on my analysis? Is my analysis truly what could happen?

What I (Stanwooddave) have said before, and in the past:Watch out, for what you wish, regarding a Constitutional Convention, if you don’t know already, but if a Constitutional Convention were to take place, there is/are no limits to what can be put/brought before the Constitutional Convention.“

Example, do away with the 2nd Amendment, if the votes are there, say goodbye to a very cherished 2nd Amendment.

A response that was given: Never happen. This is the argument used to discourage a CC {Constitutional Convention}. The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues. Second, the red states and the people that live there far out number the blue states and the kooky left that has hijacked our country and stolen our liberty. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

First off let me be perfectly clear, what ever statement's and or questions I ask/present, are only for educational purposes only, so as to be able to learn, and or share idea's.

Assume for the sake of argument, a Constitutional Convention is called, lets use Obama's 57 state's, and we'll say in the Great State of Neverhappeninmylifetime.

I would imagine that for sake of argument, their would be say 2 (two) State Representatives, 2 (two) State Senator's, as well as 2 (two) U.S. Congressional Representatives, and 2 (two) U.S. Senator's. I pick these critter's only because you know were a CC to happen, everyone wants to look SO IMPORTANT.

Simple math: if only 4 (four) people representing each state, total is (4 x 50) 200 or(4 x 57) 228. If on the other hand, 8 (eight) people representing each state, total is (8 x 50) 400.

Either way, thats a lot of people. I would argue that at said Constitutional Convention, Robert's Rule's of Order would be used, and or something akin to this.

You put forth the proposition that "The reality is a CC would be very limited in scope and would address only a few key issues." I agree, that a "limited scope" Constitutional Convention, could happen, and "only for those issue's agreed to in advance."

Now here is where I'm (Stanwooddave) as dumb as a box of rock's. In an agreed to, in advance, limited in scope, Constitutional Convention, why can't someone make a motion (under Robert's Rule's of Order, or whatever else {Rule's of Order} they so choose) to add "X" "Y" or "Z," to test the water's, and if say the presiding person of the Constitutional Convention, decides to go off the track's sort of speak, (See last paragraph) what's to stop the momentum if it should get leg's????

Please tell me something akin to an earth shattering revelation, like "As soon as the person or person(s) makes the motion to go off the track's, said person or person(s) would immediately be brought out back of the building and shot."

Please tell me more then, "Well it was all agreed to, to convene a limited in scope, Constitutional Convention"

Nothing in my statement(s) and or question(s) should be seen as any kind of attack, they are really, simply for my selfish educational benefit, nothing more, nothing less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes I know that when a motion is made, that someone has to “second said motion,” then a vote of the motion yeas & nay’s, for the purpose of this discussion, the yeas won, i.e., to go off the track's of the agreed to in advance, limited in scope, Constitution Convention.

What is to stop said happening? ++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please also, do take into consideration that $$money$$ / dollar's can buy a lot of people, it's just the difference in price, for each person.

An offer of proof: [William Andrews] Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, [William Andrews] Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."

17 posted on 01/12/2013 2:24:35 AM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's don't lie, they just Testily{ing} as taught in their respected Police Academy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade
“the end of the US as a great power-but maybe that would not be so bad.”

FLB:

Power abhors a vacuum. Somebody will fill the vacuum the US leaves when the lights are turned off. If you think our best interests have been sidelined today wait for that day. You ain’t seen nothing yet!

“No man can stand success! Another’s that is.” Mark Twain

18 posted on 01/12/2013 3:04:22 AM PST by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave

For God’s sake, fix the apostrophes in the title and your sig! Those errors are jarring and destroy the credibility of your writing.


19 posted on 01/12/2013 5:10:15 AM PST by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

It won’t take years to build up a force - it can be done quickly, Zer0 could:

1. Bring in UN troops, and/or

2. Federalize the unions

If you haven’t read Matt Bracken’s EFOD trilogy, recommend you make it a HIGH priority.


20 posted on 01/12/2013 5:15:30 AM PST by Biff55 (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

We can do nothing as individuals but die under the force of the organised.

The Police are organised.

The first few raids will set the tone. They will shoot up a few homes, kill some people ,jail some poor bass tards,and then we will either organise and put a stop to it or pass our guns over and watch America die.


21 posted on 01/12/2013 5:37:18 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
“We would instead have to evade the unjust law as individuals,”

Not necessarily, War, like love, is an affirmative act.

22 posted on 01/12/2013 5:55:57 AM PST by TalBlack (Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise
We still would be in no position to fight for our rights.

The next Civil War will not be fought on battlefields with organized opposing forces. It will be fought by one side doing a now-shameful job for a paycheck, and the other side of experienced hunters and veterans fighting for their freedom and survival.

23 posted on 01/12/2013 6:02:08 AM PST by DTogo (High time to bring back The Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: UnwashedPeasant
They would not repeat an assault on Ft. Sumter, but they would defend against a Federal gun grab, etc.

Whatever "Gulf of Tonkin" incident is needed will be manufactured. Witness the Benghazi fiasco - the complete underlying story won't come out for 20 years.

24 posted on 01/12/2013 6:04:39 AM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

Know what you mean.

Too old to run, too mean to die, and remorse isn’t in the dictionary.

Never did know how this remorse crap started.

Why should you have remorse for doing what needs to be done to save your life?


25 posted on 01/12/2013 7:12:15 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Biff55

Being president Obama would uses the army, and the traitorous unpurged elements of the National Guard.

He doesn’t need unions to do anything but support him, hes got a professional force. But that all assumes Obama is alive at all. If there was a 2nd civil war of any kind it would be a tactical imperative for the rebels to take Obama out in the opening days. Therefore Zero wont be doing much of anything at all, his successor will.

In any event it is almost impossible to believe that a shooting war could happen in the next 4 years Obama is even eligible(constitutionally) to be president. There is far too much to do for the “rebels” to prepare for that day, both politically and structurally.

Politically:
1: Conservative state governments have to be purged of imperialist and dominated by patriots.

2: Conservative State populations must similarly be impassioned in the cause of liberty at a fervor patriot pinch.

Structurally:

3: State military & defense assets including the aforementioned national guard beurl have to be purged of the “loyalest” federal pawns. Their officers must consist entirely of patriots.

3: That is just the national guard, when it becomes clear war is coming What little influence we have left in congress will have to be directed towards abolition of the Federal army, and mothballing the navy..

All of theses tasks are interrelated, and to be frank all of them will happen more or less on their own as our population becomes more polarized by Washington’s political misdeeds in the coming years & decades, but few if any of them will be competed in the next 4 years.

The sheer size of the task and the structural changes diliberatly made by Linclin and his predecessors to make us subservient to their will mandate that theses tasks will be difficult and time consuming.

The big Coup will be getting Liberals and Democrats to realizes just how much they hate us and don’t want us around. You do that and their wont be a war, simply a mutual agreement that we are better off separate. That in my mind is our real goal. Washington political both left and allegedly right will make that difficult thou.


26 posted on 01/12/2013 7:20:20 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Biff55

Being president Obama would uses the army, and the traitorous unpurged elements of the National Guard.

He doesn’t need unions to do anything but support him, hes got a professional force. But that all assumes Obama is alive at all. If there was a 2nd civil war of any kind it would be a tactical imperative for the rebels to take Obama out in the opening days. Therefore Zero wont be doing much of anything at all, his successor will.

In any event it is almost impossible to believe that a shooting war could happen in the next 4 years Obama is even eligible(constitutionally) to be president. There is far too much to do for the “rebels” to prepare for that day, both politically and structurally.

Politically:
1: Conservative state governments have to be purged of imperialist and dominated by patriots.

2: Conservative State populations must similarly be impassioned in the cause of liberty at a fervor patriot pinch.

Structurally:

3: State military & defense assets including the aforementioned national guard beurl have to be purged of the “loyalest” federal pawns. Their officers must consist entirely of patriots.

4: That is just the national guard, when it becomes clear war is coming What little influence we have left in congress will have to be directed towards abolition of the Federal army, and mothballing the navy..

All of theses tasks are interrelated, and to be frank all of them will happen more or less on their own as our population becomes more polarized by Washington’s political misdeeds in the coming years & decades, but few if any of them will be competed in the next 4 years.

The sheer size of the task and the structural changes diliberatly made by Linclin and his predecessors to make us subservient to their will mandate that theses tasks will be difficult and time consuming.

The big Coup will be getting Liberals and Democrats to realizes just how much they hate us and don’t want us around. You do that and their wont be a war, simply a mutual agreement that we are better off separate. That in my mind is our real goal. Washington political both left and allegedly right will make that difficult thou.


27 posted on 01/12/2013 7:21:23 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
I see a pattern being set up.

In 1994/1995 Bill Clinton and the left started a talking points campaign that the “Right Wing Extremist”, being led by Rush, wanted to assassinate Bill Clinton.

Low and behold Clinton took a trip the the Philippine's and shazam there was an assignation plot against Clinton by al Quaeda.

In 2008/2009 Zippo and the left started a talking points campaign that the “Right Wing Extremist”, being led by Beck this time< wanted to assassinate Zippo.

Low and behold Hillary took an unexpected trip overseas and shazam there was an assignation plot against Hillary by al Quaeda.

We now have Zippo doing all things Lincoln.

What you want to bet there is an attempted assignation of Zippo by al Quaeda and they try and make it appear as if the “Right Wing Extremist” have teamed up with the terrorist to wage war against the US?

28 posted on 01/12/2013 7:38:46 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: precisionshootist

I say with respect that I am convinced that you are mistaken. There is no real problem with our existing constitution, the problem is that our elected government refuses to abide by it. Why should anyone believe that calling a convention to change the constitution will correct this problem?
I see it as the same thinking that leads some people to believe that the problem of people using guns to murder people in violation of laws prohibiting murder can be solved by passing laws against guns. The problem is not one that can be solved by passing laws and the problem of a lawless gangster government cannot be solved by changing the constitution. The existing amendments have all come about one by one except for the first ten and I would suggest that some of them have turned out to be grievous errors with the twenty sixth being the most recent such error. To open up the possibility of a total rewriting would almost certainly accomplish nothing but destruction.

I have said for years that our elections have devolved to become a contest to see which candidate can promise to violate the constitution in the most appealing ways. Then when one is elected he swears to uphold the document he just spent two years promising to violate. Why would anyone be surprised when he totally disregards the constitution from that day on? Why would anyone imagine that changing the constitution will bring any different result?

The source of the problem is the voters and many of those who now vote were barred from voting by the original constitution and or by the state laws regarding voter qualifications, the only changes needed are to once again bar those people from voting. When people continue to reelect the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Biden and Obama and steadfastly refuse to consider electing decent human beings it is the voters who need to be changed, not the constitution, except insofar as the constitution needs to be changed to stop some of them from voting.

In fact the call for a constitutional convention makes me think of someone who has gone to a doctor with a complaint and left with a prescription and calls the doctor three days later and demands another prescription because he is not feeling any better. When the doctor asks if he took his medicine as directed he replies that he never actually had the prescription filled.


29 posted on 01/12/2013 7:55:49 AM PST by RipSawyer (I was born on Earth, what planet is this?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

Meanwhile, the urban natives are restless...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57563333-504083/parents-and-students-arrested-after-street-brawls-near-pittsburgh/


30 posted on 01/12/2013 9:09:53 AM PST by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

“Too old to run, too mean to die, and remorse isn’t in the dictionary.”

That, sir, is a beautiful turn of phrase.


31 posted on 01/12/2013 9:26:29 AM PST by Psalm 144 (Capitol to the districts: "May the odds be ever in your favor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jimluke01

Before the November election, there were rumblings about civil war and such, but it never seemed real. Speculative musing might be the best term for it, or maybe it was just grumpy old patriots venting their inner Patrick Henrys.

Now, since the election, talk of revolution and CWII is much more open ... and it’s scary as hell.

I still hold out hope that at least ONE of the States finds the courage to tell the federal monster to go to hell. Just one. That’s all it will take. Then we can all draw our lines in the sand and wait for the other side to make a move.


32 posted on 01/12/2013 9:41:14 AM PST by DNME (Without the Constitution, there is no legitimate U.S. government. Period.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stanwood_Dave
These questions and concerns seem to be a very common when the topic of a CC is discussed.

I will try to answer from the knowledge that I have picked up so far and this is just my understanding of the process.

A CC is certainly not without risk but that must be weighed against the risk of staying our current course and doing nothing.

So lets take the hypothetical that the libs from California propose a change (amendment) that would do away with the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. This however would be very difficult when you consider the majority of the states and thus delegates would be from red states but for the sake or discussion lets say they do.

This process of a Constitutional convention serves only to PROPOSE an amendment. The safeguard is these amendments would then have to be ratified by the states just like ANY other amendment. Left wing ideas rarely have even the slightest chance of passage when given a direct vote of the people. So the chances of the left being able to overturn the second amendment or implement any change that would give more power to government is very very slim. This is why the left fear amendments to the Constitution. The left knows they can't win these battles and we can.

The left does not have the coverage to win on a level playing field. They simply don't have the numbers and NEVER have had them. This is why they have always sought to stack the courts with leftist judges. Statists know they will never have the votes to take liberty from the people. The left is only beating us and running the country because the have spent decades taking over key political positions, the media, the courts and the schools, but the reality is that their numbers are few. They can't beat us in a fair election. This is THE reason the democrats are so resistant to a balanced budget amendment. They know the CAN'T win if the states get to vote.

The good news is our Constitution gives the states the power to correct the course of the country and regain liberty when the federal government has become corrupt or refuses to control itself. The bad news is I think we have a narrow window of time to get this done.

I recommend this paper by the Goldwater institute to learn more about amending the Constitution by convention. It's a fairly short 3 part series. Here is a link to the introduction.

http://goldwaterinstitute.org/article/amending-constitution-convention-complete-view-founders-plan-part-1-series

33 posted on 01/12/2013 12:32:13 PM PST by precisionshootist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IMR 4350

assignation??


34 posted on 01/12/2013 3:48:31 PM PST by Chuckster (The longer I live the less I care about what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Chuckster

Boy that was a screw up wasn’t it.

Time for some different glasses I guess.


35 posted on 01/13/2013 6:02:53 AM PST by IMR 4350
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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