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.
Why should we give them anything? This country has a constitution, and if they want to live in a Communist state let them all move to Venezuela.
Border families like mine didn't fare all that well, either.
Bill Ayers is a throw-back to the type of leftist who wasn't afraid to draw blood in pursuit of their wicked ideals. That sort is the exception, rather than the rule these days.
I'd say the left failed a basic test in the Art of War, wouldn't you?
I think this is the highest profile commentator I’ve read put it this bluntly. Those of us who want freedom, and understand that to be Man’s natural state, are running out of patience. There are just too many of us who won’t be pacified by Big Macs and cable tv.
The States have all the power. They just don’t realize it. Every dollar the feds spend, comes from people who live in states. Of course, that doesn’t count the dollars they print, but that house of cars is going to fall soon.
That's true, and don't think they'll behave any differently if they choose to exert force against secessionist American states. In fact, they'd pull their punches even more than they did in foreign wars when faced with having to subdue their own people.
The other dynamic that needs to be factored in, is the reaction of those being subdued. We're not talking about quelling a localized civil disturbance here. We're talking about the U.S. government executing an act of war against a large segment of the country over a civil process of political dis-union.
The very act of them raising their hand to us in such a manner, would forever shatter the civil compact between us. Such an act would give the secessionist states the legal and moral grounds to retaliate in kind - and they would. The resultant death and destruction would destroy any hope of ever achieving the central objective of such an overt act.
It's a risk that I don't believe the powers-that-be will take. As in any war, there's always the possibility that the aggressor will lose - even when they possess superior firepower, etc. The current regime doesn't have the stones to commit unrestrained violence against any foe - least of all, their own countrymen and kin. Even when extreme violence has been committed against them first, their response has been tempered.
It's a stretch to believe that they'll suddenly find the courage necessary to execute a full scale war against a segment of their own people, when those people have done nothing but choose to enact a political realignment.
Note that Marxists have always executed programs of mass murder and extermination against unarmed populations.
Until they figure out how to disarm us first, it's game-set-match.
That’s true. That’s why I think there may need to be some level of fighting. Hopefully a split will happen, we’ll prosper, and the Sheeple will wise up and demand reform from the Moonbeam Browns and Doofus Patricks.
I’m in agreement with you, but I wonder how many of us could live without Social Security, Medicare, or other federally funded pensions and medical care. We’ve all grown up with these programs and unwittingly gotten so dependent on them, that it would be hard for many older Americans to get by without them. Family ties are not what they were, and the days of being able to count on your children’s help when you are old seem to have disappeared.
My own guess is they'd all be eliminated.
We'd need to insist that the country be split up roughly along county lines. The tards don't really own much real estate.
I recently read the Communist Manifesto. You are absolutely right! It was striking, I’d say, a little surprising that Marx offered no benefit to the proletariat, just a vehicle for their spite. That spite is the product of communist propaganda instead of the natural response against injustice. But it was amazing to me that what you said is clearly written for all to see.
Walter E. is a great fellow. I always admire his reasoning. In our national case it’s looking to me like peaceful separation ain’t gonna work. I’m leaning toward separating the trouble makers/ libtards/ snivelers/ commiecrats/ big spenders/ and all the rest who can’t read the Constitution, from their skins. It shouldn’t be necessary to skin very many of them before the rest realize it’s time to shut up and keep their head down. I expect the next election is our “last call.”
Privatize and phase them out. The federal government is not empowered by the constitution to be involved in social programs. These are left to the states and the people.
“..So when do we take charge of what we claim to believe in?”
It will take leadership. People like us won’t act in a way that negatively affects our lives. We have families, good jobs, roles at church, and in the community. We’re not, quite, willing to die alone, or be put in the Gulag having our sacrifice accomplish nothing. We are willing to be a part of movement if we see even the slimmest hope.
I think this article is a huge leap forward. So far, the only people saying anything like this are bloggers. Time is coming, maybe in the next year, when we’ll start to see some major civil disobedience. I think it’ll come when they start enforcing the individual mandate.
I think you're partly right. Because they're relatively wussies yet want to remain elitists in the larger, pan-world aristocracy, they've given our tax dollars to most every federal agency to militarize (think of "Africanized bees") with plenty of ammo, so, it may be that they'd try to flood us with blue helmets from the UN. That would be bad and hopefully short-lived. But, nukes could be used to make an example of some of us and millions could die if the Left gets Russia, Iran and the Chinese to help subdue "revolting masses of Conservatives," all as cover for their vision of an all-encompassing, one-government world.
“There simply isn’t the political will to murder millions of fellow Americans over a purely political question of secession.”
I’m starting to disagree with that. Why are we wanting to secede? Because we’re tired of being the benefactors of the slothful and degenerate. If we threaten to secede will they stop being slothful and degenerate because their benefactors refuse to pay? Will they starve? They won’t.
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.