Posted on 08/19/2018 6:23:51 AM PDT by econjack
A few days ago, Jack Minzey, sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written.
Jack went to be with the Lord, on Sunday, 8 April 2018.
Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein. His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded only by his intellectual ability. This is the last of his works:
Civil War How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge. That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.
The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.
What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.
That's a civil war.
There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.
This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship.
Your very own dictatorship.
The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.
Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.
If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.
But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played. That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.
When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.
The Constitution has something to say about that.
Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.
Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in it if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.
Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.
That's not a free country.
It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.
Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between a conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.
You only left out one group: Agency heads and upper level managers within the Federal government.
These people are unassailable - next to impossible to fire, and they wield incredible power through the Regulatory process because they essentially write laws on their own.
They know it, but deny it in public - except if you violate one of their Sacred Regulations. Then you find out it has all the force of law, without anyone in the Congress having ever voted on it.
As for your point about military officers, that’s very astute: their rank does not have the import that it used to.
It’s an outgrowth of the Counterculture, but still with us.
But even military rank is something different now then when the Republic was founded. For example, some of my g-g-uncles were Confederate officers...but you didn’t get appointed to those posts, you had to be elected. By the men you recruited, or people who lived in your militia district.
But then the rot set in and the “professional” military people said oh no, we have to have men appointed who have the right credentials. Translation: they gotta be part of the Gang. So either get with the gang’s program or forget about it.
We used to have a popular Republic that had democratic institutions. We have now decayed into a very well developed fascist state with semi-feudal governance. The Left would like us to go the next step into full Marxist Statism, while the Trumpian Right seeks to break up the party and take us back to a property based Liberal Republic. In short, a war between the Nobles and the People.
We either win now, or end up in a techno-feudal state where we simply the servants of the Statist Elites.
Guys like Mueller and Rosenstein get that. They are desperate to keep their power and position, and are using and abusing every part of what’s left of the American state to do it.
Video (39 minutes)
for later use
According to the dictionary, a civil war is a war between political factions or regions within the same country. By that definition we've had two: the Revolutionary War, in which the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire, and the War Between the States, in which the Confederate States failed to secede from the United States. Both of those were wars of secession, in which the goal was to break away from a national government, not to take it over. This new civil war would be a war between political factions, wherein the winning side would presumably take over the national government.
I got to wondering- Did Jack meet his demise naturally?
I posted it in #5.
It wont be a ‘civil war’ more a leftist/anarchist/criminal uprising which will be destroyed by the sane people.
IMAGINE .... America without leftists .... IMAGINE ....
The Finnish Civil War should be studied.
Look it up.
Thank you, and BookMark
Tatt
Really?
The biggest difference between all right and alright is that one (all right) is a commonly used phrase that’s been accepted by dictionaries and grammar stylebooks for ages, while the other (alright) technically isn’t, well, a word. Resources such as Garner’s Modern American Usage deem all right “the standard,” and make the case that the hybrid spelling alright should be totally avoided because it’s nothing more than a spelling mistake.
http://www.writersdigest.com/online-editor/alright-vs-all-right
The quick and dirty answer is that you use who when you are talking about a person and that when you are talking about an object. Stick with that rule and you'll be safe.
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/who-versus-that
You can use that when referring to a group of people, but that was not my use of the word. I would agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. My examples are correct as stated.
I don’t use “examples.” I go by what my clients accept and what they don’t. In other words, what ends up in the finished book.
Sometimes I query them if current newspaper usage is different—for instance cellphone v. cell phone—and let them decide. Newspapers and magazines tend to adopt new usages before book publishers.
There is a slight difference between who and that and it has nothing to do with singular or plural. It has to do with what question is being answered. Between two different people, you would use who. Distinguishing between two different definitions, you might use that. It’s vague, but both are acceptable in either situation.
Don’t tell me I’m wrong. That’s very arrogant. When you have supported yourself for as long as I have doing copyediting and proofreading for major publishers, get back to me.
And what really pisses me off is what we will be seeing happening very soon, as always, as if on que, the disturbing images of rabidly vehement, ungrateful and unholy, Soros bred (and paid) cowardly-face covered anarchist punks...PUNKS, pretending to be Trump supporters so they can pummel and beat up any or all bystanders, innocent or not,as long as the media gets a good shot. Whipping up anger and hatred. Exacerbating violence through lies, misinformation, confusion. succeeding very efficiently with the full support and direction of most news outlets, and of course The major players on the dark side of common sense and the REAL truth, Soros, move on, Huffington, people for The “American way”, meathead, Maddow, Hillery, Comey, Joe and his mentally challenged side kick and all they do to stir the pot. Not to mention once somewhat fair thinkers who have turned into spineless self righteous loosers like G Will and B Crystal.The slime so cowardly manipulating behind the scenes, so intent deviant and evil, so afraid to even reveal themselves, many...MANY Rhinos. Haters of good, enemies of truth. As much as I dislike George Soros, at least I know who he is. I’m sorry to resort to name calling but it’s so dang frustrating and sad with the almost certain upcoming deaths of people, whether it be cops or kids, it will be someone. One or many, needlessly...these riots, I mean “protests” will be starting soon. It’s the saddest commentary of our times. The deaths of our own over all this cluster F of a mess is what really saddens me. The Blindness to simple common sense that stares many Americans right in front of their f*ing faces is what pisses me off. That people can truly be that brain dead to not see EVERYTHING that is going on and not see things as they truly are and not by what they are told by others. No honor, no brains, sad to say no future. They will be rudely awoken someday, all to live and die once in this life, but I would hate to be them in the Judgement that follows. But the deaths to come during the coming orchestrated riots. I think that’s the biggest weight on my heart. How many this time? I hope none, but I fear it will happen again. I personally blame George Soros and all his minions, Hillary Clinton and her army of formidable zombies. Obama.... I’m puking, just sick of the thought he was the most successful one man sleeper cell wittingly or not, that the muslims ever foisted upon or country. The mullahs to this day rub their hands with glee over their lucky fortune of that windfall of destruction. I’m just venting and tired. But it felt great to say all that. You all have a great week and TRY to love everyone, regardless, some people you just cant, but we should not just dismiss people out hand just because they can’t get their head out their ass.
“I always thought that the term meant intranational, within the country’s borders.
In a traditional “state of war” it is between two nations. I guess if the south had won, it would have been a war. It’s one thing to declare yourself a nation. It’s quite another to defend that.”
Yeh, I understand the meaning of intra vs inter. I have an Economics degree. Back on topic; In the minds of the southern states that seceded, being that they formed a new nation the indeed were fighting a war. It goes along with the southern perspective that the “war” was as much about federalism/states rights as slavery. So, the war not only settled the slavery issue it established federal supremacy, except for California, lol. In fact in the early days of the war (there’s some good books in this) Lincoln was prepared to allow slavery continue to preserve the union.
It has nothing to do with arrogance. I retired from a Big Ten university after almost 40 years of teaching. I’m also the author of 18 books and probably three dozen articles so I know something about the copy editing and proof reading process. I’m not sure letting the person with the deepest pockets decide what is correct English is a viable way to say you’re correct. The fact that I have presented published sources showing I’m correct and you are offering yourself as the expert doesn’t fly with me and likely many others.
However, you are unlikely to change the narrative 150 years later. I'm currently reading a book on Winston Churchill and even he was referring to the American "Civil War" and this was 75 years ago!
This is similar to people who refer to our form of government as a "democracy" when it is actually a republic. We are technically correct but we aren't going to make much headway.
BTTT
Not really interested in re hashing the Civil War. My point is that the winner gets to make the rules. The CSA was a thought, a proposal, and vision. Because they fought a war of revolution and lost...it is a civil war.
Y’all never miss an opportunity to bray about how it wasn’t about Slavery and how the CSA was a “real” country.
Honestly, we have more important things to worry about. Start living in the 21st century. We welcome everyone, no matter how misguided our great, great grandparents might have been.
What is “standard” usage changes quickly these days, as the spoken language continues to affect the written language. I have had to abandon many of my “rules” over the years, especially recently.
Of course readability and sense and accuracy are still my guidelines, and I’m sure I make lots of suggestions that the publishers don’t take. I don’t go back to the finished book to see what they changed at my suggestions—that would take too much time—but I’m sure they stick to the author’s preference much of the time. That too is what’s driving the changes, authors who are big sellers and have a lot of clout.
They would never accept my changing “that” to “who,” I know that much, even if I thought it was a good change.
Face it, that is the written language these days.
I still know all the rules, and that isn’t one of them.
Nice chatting with you.
The Confederate states did not consider themselves to be part of the country, so no civil war.
The colonies were not represented in England and as such its populace was little more than slaves. That would be a revolt, not a civil war.
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.