Posted on 10/15/2008 6:21:56 AM PDT by connell
By Christopher Cook
Friends, conservatives, countrymen,
It's time to recognize a basic fact: We are in a civil war. It is obviously not the civil war of pitched battles and 600,000 dead. It is a low-grade—but omnipresent—political and social conflict, and though it is not an open war, it does involve violence.
Of course, only one side is fighting it as a war. The left sees every area of society as a battleground, and they will use any and every tactic at their disposal—including violence—to achieve their aims.
This is, of course, nothing new, and before we can talk about recent violence and other criminal events—and the possibility of a dramatic escalation thereof—we have to take a quick look at history.
Using a bird's-eye view of American history, one sees a disturbing trend: The Democrats and the left (once different, now synonymous) have been waging a civil war against Republicans since the end of the last one in 1865.
By 2004, the trend was well-established. Shots were being fired into GOP headquarters. Thugs were breaking into offices and physically assaulting the workers therein. Vandalism was widespread, threats were common, and battery was on the rise.
Looking at this trend required this author to ask a question: Was there an equivalent coming from our side?
I did some research—admittedly cursory at first, and then more thoroughly. I will readily confess that I did not have the time to perform the kind of research that, say, someone like John Lott would perform to get a complete statistical picture in pursuit of a book on the subject (though this is something that Modern Conservative will be doing soon.) Nonetheless, I was unable to find any coherent trend of political violence directed from the right at the left. Plenty the other direction, though, which led to my first exploration of this subject, titled Democrats are more violent. In fact, there's no comparison.
Research continued, and it led to more discoveries. Among them was that this violence was nothing new; it has its roots in Reconstruction and the (first) Civil War.
Indeed, I learned that Democrat anger at the election of Republicans—and their willingness to use physical street violence and destruction of property to express that anger—goes all the way back to the election of Lincoln. The election of the very first Republican president was an occasion for street thuggery on the part of the Democrats, and little appears to have changed.
During Reconstruction, we saw the worst massacres in American history—perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans. Hundreds of Republicans, whites and blacks, were slaughtered by Democrats for the crime of being Republicans. Thus, it was greatly frustrating to hear the Virginia Tech massacre, horrific though it was, described as "the worst massacre in American history." It wasn't even close, and saying it was was either the result of laziness or revisionism—not surprising, given the fact that media, nearly all Democrats, certainly would not want to call attention to their bloodthirsty history.
More research led to shocking realizations about presidential assassinations and attempts, and about just how low some lefty thugs feel compelled to go.
Again, this research is less than 100% comprehensive. Nonetheless, the record is disturbing. The Democrats/left display an ongoing willngness to use violence against Republicans. No appreciable equivalent appears to come from Republicans.
Enter 2008.
Added to all this history is a new phenomenon: The left has a new quasi-messianic figure, around whom a crazed and cultish movement is growing. As a part of this developing cult of personality, several trends have arisen which, when added to the low-grade civil war we are discussing, offer disturbing possibilities for the future. There is even a vibe developing that is chillingly reminiscent of the rise of 20th century fascists like Mussolini and Hitler.
Added to that are other activities and trends that make for the possibility of a grim ride for America—and specifically for those who oppose Barack Obama—in the near future. Quoting from the afore-linked article:
Recently, Republican rage at this trendline—and at the notion that a candidate who appears to be nothing more than a creation of the radical left is actually ahead in the polls—has boiled over into a few comments at a few McCain-Palin rallies. A few comments. A few times.
Of course, the media has seen this and decided to suggest that a rage-fueled right wing fascism is about to swamp the country. Meanwhile—and without any shame whatsoever—they ignore ACTUAL violence, threats, crime, and intimidation coming from the left. They ignore the fact that while John McCain is trying to decry what little is coming from his supporters, Barack Obama appears to be tacitly encouraging much worse behavior from his.
This situation is being discussed with great intensity right now in the dextrosphere. Rather than attempt to repeat what is already being said—and said brilliantly and with citation and sourcing—we will aggregate some of those discussions here. Read them. Familiarize yourself with what is really going on:
As always, Michelle Malkin is the cream of the crop:
Crush the Obamedia narrative: Look who’s “gripped by insane rage”
Vandals strike York County GOP headquarters
Libs Threaten to Beat & Kill Sarah Palin... Media Silent
You may know someone who doesn't think William Ayers matters.
Hope, Change and Molotov Cocktails
How’s that reaching out working, John?
James Joyner: “McCain Supporters Angry! Mean! Scary!” Or Did He Mean Obama Supporters?
Obama supporters call Palin a "c*nt." Where is the media?
On the Ownership of Gored Oxen
Memo to Leftist Elitists: Look at Hatred Within
Which party is the party of rage?
Are the Angry GOP Protesters Just More of the Same-- Leftist Tools?
MORE ON THOSE “ANGRY, RACIST GOP MOBS”
And a reminder from 2006 . . .
It's Time to Act
Look at the links above regarding recent trends. Read the analysis and historical information linked earlier. Put it all together with what you are seeing with your own eyes here in 2008. Is it a full-blown, hot war? No. But look at the trends. Look at who does what to whom. Look how it is reported, and look who is tacitly calling for more.
Now . . .
Imagine a scenario where Obama loses a close election. You think violence will end at that point, or increase?
Worse still, imagine a scenario where Obama wins, and the margin of his victory is ACORN's vote fraud. When we go into the street to protest this fraud—and we would—what do you think will happen to us? And who will the media portray as the perpetrators and the victims?
No matter what happens, we're looking at trouble with a capital T.
To all decent Americans (especially those in the "middle"):
Please recognize the truth of this. I know that the media, Hollywood, and academia have woven a fog so thick that the truth is barely discernible. But please, try to peer through the mist and see that this is not a two-sided situation. While there is the occasional incident from the right, all evidence is pointing to the idea that the ratio of the left as perpetrators of political violence to the right as perpetrators is 100 to 1. (The same appears to be the case for voter fraud, by the way, but that is another issue.)
Is this what you want in America? A political climate with one side using violence, crime, and threats against the other side? A media that works, shills, and lies for one side rather than just reporting the facts?
To the media, who aid and abet everything the left does—who covers for their every criminal, violent, and threatening act, while fibricating™ a reality where Republicans are the culprits:
What, you think they won't come for you eventually?
You think that just because you're on the left and you want the left to have more power, that you won't end up on their target list when that power has sufficiently expanded?
You think it was just an isolated anomaly that the Senate threatened ABC's broadcast license because it was about to air something they didn't like? Think again. Get them more power, and that'll be just the beginning.
To the left:
We're on to you. While we have no interest in being like you, we will not sit idly by any more while you use threats, vandalism, and assault and battery as a mode of political "speech."
. . . while you fire shots into our campaign headquarters.
. . . while you punch handicapped girls in wheelchairs because you disagree with her parents' politics.
. . . while you throw molotov cocktails at our homes, cut our brake lines, and threaten our children.
. . . and while your presidential candidate uses subtle code to endorse a climate where these attacks become a tool in his campaign and his vision for America.
To conservatives and Republicans:
Make no mistake, this is a war.
Since they're going to say we're the bad guys whether we fight back or not, we might as well fight back.
Since those who "buy ink by the barrel" have already picked a fight with us—and are waging that fight with extreme prejudice—we might as well fight the media too (are you listening, GOP candidates and elected officials?).
They'll punch you in the nose, huck a molotov cocktail on your lawn, and then call you a racist and a fascist for complaining about it. They'll perpetrate violence upon you and then say you're the violent one. Only one question remains:
Are you going to sit back and take it?
We are not like the left. We are not perfect, but we are not like them. This means that we do not behave like them, even in the face of this unremitting, low-level onslaught. Yes, we have the occasional miscreant, the occasional deviation from decency, and to those among our ranks who perpetrate such acts, we say please, check yourselves before you wreck yourselves.
But for every one of ours like that, there are 100 or more of theirs. Their acts have tacit official endorsement and gain cover from the media. It's very likely to get worse, and if we don't start responding, it will serve as an invitation for more. Use every tool at your disposal—short of violence (unless your health and safety are directly threatened)—to respond.
The Founders did not their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors to create an America that looks like this.
Conservatives, this has to be a call to arms. You didn't start this fight, but by God, you can finish it.
those were some great posts
passed near yer neck of the woods last weekend
Avery and Wautaga Counties....26-81-40
>>>>The Bolshevik Revolution was relatively bloodless.
>>True ... the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution was incredibly bloody.
Exactly so. I would attribute #1 and #2 on the leader board to it, as well as some of the others. See the table to the right.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
And it is all of a piece. Shelby and Sessions soldier on. Who will fill their shoes when they retire the field?
Far down on my list is whether Charlie Crist is a political descendent of Dempsey Barron or Claude Kirk. I am distraught.
Interesting take. I work for the federal government and see a huge cross section of America in my line of work. It is far from impressive. The federal and state governments are engaged in a massive “wealth redistribution” scheme of which they are apparently unaware, unable to rein in, or deliberately ignore for vote buying purposes.
That may be today. Since the early 1960s, however, the NY'ers have flooded NJ. Many became "Republicans" (of the RINO variety) because, after all, now they lived "in the country." What they didn't do was drop their liberalism at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel - they brought it with them. Hence, NJ has become a stinking cesspit of uber-liberalism, just like NYC. I'm glad - from a political standpoint - that I don't live there any more. However, I now understand much better how my grandfather felt about what the Communists did to his homeland of Russia (though on a lesser scale, to be sure).
Later in the night read.
Thanks for the ping, JB.
The Dems to this very day sow welfare dollars in their hell-hole urban plantations and reap votes.
The Democrat party remains the party of slavery to this very day.
I wouldn't count on that one working out quite the way the SOB planned.
Forget secession. Bloody forget it. I hear that talk all the time here. I'm not going to cower in some diminished country with hostile, crime ridden, broke, corrupt, heavily populated socialist paradises on each coast.
Anyone who isn't blind can see this coming. It is going to get worse every year, every election. I would like to return to a moral and civil society. If I cannot, I will not shrink from the alternative.
There's just one small problem with this: the belief that Texas is the only state in the Union who has the right to secede in it's state Constitution is a MYTH.
What the truth is: Texas has wording in it's Constitution that sort of 'mimics' the Declaration of Independence as such:
"All poitical power is inherent in the people...they have at all times the inalienable right to alter their government in such manner as they think proper."
Now...that doesn't mean that it's a dead issue...
http://www.texassecede.com/faq.asp
Just to set the record straight, y'all.
And the result is, not only have we lost our culture, but we're not even going to maintain the economic freedom or strong national defense that the “moderate” Republicans supposedly wanted to defend. They never figured out that the reason the left spent so much time pushing social liberalism was that once a society becomes socially liberal, it was automatically demand socialist economics and a passive, weak military. They seemed to think we could have a population of activist homosexuals, abortion-loving feminists, and Third World migrants who were committed to the military, to patriotism, and to economic liberty.
So the impending Obama elevation (if it occurs) will be the final judgment on “moderate” Republicanism. And that judgment is, it doesn't work. It only whets the public’s appetite for dependency and socialism. Looks like the hated Southern social conservatives and Northern ethnic Catholics were right all along.
But I have great confidence in the ability of some around here to tell us, if Obama wins, that his election proves we need to be even more socially liberal in future elections.
Excellent!
Here’s a thread that has a long, but very important booklet called “The Revolution Was”, by Garet Garrett (1938). Lots of parallels to today. I wish more folks would read this lesson from history.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/929392/posts
Here’s an excerpt:
So it was that a revolution took place within the form. Like the hagfish, the New Deal entered the old form and devoured its meaning from within. The revolutionaries were inside; the defenders were outside. A government that had been supported by the people and so controlled by the people became one that supported the people and so controlled them. Much of it is irreversible. That is true because habits of dependence are much easier to form than to break. Once the government, on ground of public policy, has assumed the responsibility to provide people with buying power when they are in want of it, or when they are unable to provide themselves with enough of it, according to a minimum proclaimed by government, it will never be the same again.
All of this is said by one who believes that people have an absolute right to any form of government they like, even to an American Welfare state, with status in place of freedom, if that is what they want. The first of all objections to the New Deal is neither political nor economic. It is moral.
Once the protectrions of the US Constitution have been effectively eliminated for you, so to are those protections for our enemies dissolved. Laws that follow from constitutional authority no longer remain in effect once the constitution from which they flow is itself corrupted and moot. Neither can *just one constitutional provision, or two, or three* be cherrypicked away- if one goes, they are ALL gone, for us, sadly, but for our adversaries and outright enemies as well.
As for secession, Texas could do it if we didn’t have so many RINOs in Austin.
The Texans of 1836 did not seem to have had much of a problem in that respect, so follow those procedures and policies you thiunk they would have found most suitable. I can claim no great expertise to historical knowledge of those times, during which they suffered great shortages of supplies and minimal technology by today's standards, but I suspect that their approach would have involved a tallish tree and a shortish rope, which would probably not hasve been expended during its utilization and would remain available for reuse should the opportunity again present itself. But I reckon that once the word got around to the carepetbaggers and Quislings, they'd head for healthier climes, and so too would today's cowardly opportunists, who will continue their leeching and backstabbing only so long as there remains no personal risk to them to do so.
My expectation, though, based on my previous residence in Texas more than a decade back, is that you'll find some such critters most everywhere in Lone Star Country, though fewer there than in the rat-infested pismire urban colonies on the East and West coasts in particular but throughout the USA, to be sure.
You’ll be happy to knwo here in Colorado we have a ballot issue for removing AA.
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.