Skip to comments.There Are Irreconciliable Differences Between Liberty-Loving Americans and Leftists
Posted on 01/02/2014 6:41:50 PM PST by markomalley
Here's a question that I've asked in the past that needs to be revisited. Unless one wishes to obfuscate, it has a simple yes or no answer. If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group? Yes or no. My answer is no; they should be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways.
The problem our nation faces is very much like a marriage in which one partner has an established pattern of ignoring and breaking the marital vows. Moreover, the offending partner has no intention to mend his ways. Of course, the marriage can remain intact while one party tries to impose his will on the other and engages in the deviousness of one-upsmanship and retaliation. Rather than domination or submission by one party, or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.
I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage where vows are broken, our rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. These constitutional violations have increased independent of whether there's been a Democrat-controlled Washington or a Republican-controlled Washington.
There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways. You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at the magnitude of the violations.
Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is there authority for Congress to tax and spend for: Medicare, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and thousands of other activities that account for roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to citizens about what type of health insurance they must purchase, how states and people may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps, and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do just about anything for which they can muster a majority vote.
James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State." Our founder's constitutional vision of limited federal government has been consigned to the dustbin of history.
Americans have several options. We can like sheep submit to those who have contempt for liberty and our Constitution. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America's tyrants to respect our liberties and Constitution. A superior alternative is to find a way to peaceably separate into states whose citizens respect liberty and the Constitution. My personal preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.
They'll also have the 10-20% of the white, parasite population who think the same thing as the gibsmedat crowd. The percentage of producers in their country will be pitifully small. Think present day South Africa.
“Leftists will never allow us outside of their grip.”
Look under “re-education camps”, “labor camps”, and
“political correctness” for further information.
The 17th amendment is an abomination to the states the FF did not intend to be enacted. The ensured state representation until big government goons got it passed.
Genius. Always has been; this time Williams has outdone even himself.
They need the dhimmis to support them. If we leave, they will come after us to enslave us. Don't see much hope for Williams' third way; but of course it is the sensible course of action.
Not me! I lost 185 lbs with the stroke of a pen!
“We need to destroy the left.”
What do you propose? I would love to see their philosophy tossed into the ash bin of history. But then what do you do with with the people who think thair way.
“There simply isn’t the political will to murder millions of Americans.”
I believe the left has always been willing to do this it has always been their end game everywhere Marxist governments have been installed.
If you ask a dog and his fleas to vote on whether or not to maintain their relationship, nobody wonders how that vote will go.
I’m perfectly willing to split the country right down the middle. They can have any half they want. Left, right, top, bottom, middle, edges.... I care not, just as long as I don’t have to live with parasites. But parasites do not willingly leave their hosts. Blood will need to be shed.
Speak for yourself.
A bit of history of ethnic cleansing of the peoples who settled early USA:
That's because the left is willing to employ double standards. We could have easily subdued and occupied that or any other country, but for the ROEs (rules of engagement) levied by the leftist Pentagon, State Dept and Administration that prevented our soldiers from conducting a proper war. The above were so concerned about the delicate sensitivities of the muslims and the UN that our troops had to surrender their lives or risk going to jail (where many sit martyred today) rather than shoot an Afghan "civilian" whom their gut told them was aiding the enemy.
If our present establishment set out to quell a disturbance populated by white Christians, you can bet they would not be so fastidious in respecting such "cultural differences" from the fascist left.
One of those irreconcilable differences is that they won’t ever be content to let people live outside of their control,
while we’d be happy as clams for them to have their collectivist fantasy “over there, in that state” and leave us alone.
I think it's more like an upside down horse shoe. Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis...
One of the results of the attrition of the good men is that these good men, military trained and all, are now in the general populace that the left seeks to control.
The best way to destroy leftist ideology is to not allow them to include those who don’t want to follow it.
The rest will collapse on its own in a heap of misery.
The leftists are willing to murder for much less consequential reasons - ask Bill Ayers...
I don’t think a armed conflict is required as posed in the question, but I don’t think those on the left will lower themselves to broach the subject. Personally, I believe that talking about it at this point will only serve to blow off steam for those of us who are frustrated with living in a government that was only the stuff that made up bad dreams in the 80’s.