Posted on 01/20/2009 5:14:39 AM PST by PurpleMountains
In my opinion, the cultural war between secular-progressives and traditional Americans will become a violent, bloody war if the Democrats in Congress try to criminalize policy differences by trying to punish members of the Bush Administration for attempting (and succeeding) to protect American lives. Obama isn’t saying much, although he appointed Holder, but Pelosi, Conyers, Reid, Holder and others are mouthing some very dangerous thoughts. As a minimum, practices that were originated by Carter and Clinton and merely continued by the Bush Administration (such as rendition and warrantless wiretapping) will be given much publicity, and, beyond that, some of us will be forced to support some violent people we normally shun and despise.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
In the event that the new administration embarks on a campaign of egregious violations of that same document, what are you willing to do to fulfill your oath?
I take it debating Orwell, however [mis]quoted or paraphrased is not a priority in that event.
I didn't address initially your statement about starting a civil war, which could be viewed as being neutral, agreeing or disagreeing with you. The point is that by using incorrect facts, you undermine your own position. And then you go into high dudgeon with those of us who point out your mistaken "facts." You obviously don't like to be corrected on matters of fact and substance let alone your opinion. Grow up.
That was your priority? Correcting my position on the margin of his victory?
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. I was in fact agreeing with you somewhat by stating how powerful Obama is, more to do with his party's overwhelming control of Congress than his margin of victory over McCain.
I’m sorry I started this. Not one person here has bothered to address the fact that this post was about the fact that a “violent and bloody war” will start and that WE may be forced to some of us will be forced to “support some violent people we normally shun and despise.”
If Obama succeeds with his socialistic agenda for this country, passes an amnesty, and starts infringing on individual rights such as gun control, punitive taxes, etc., then there could well be violent demonstrations and people manning the barricades in defense of the Constitution and the debasement of the values that this nation was founded upon.
Here is something from one of our founding documents that encapsulates how and why our country was established and why some people risked their "Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor."
God help us, if we lack the courage of our forefathers to defend these values and rights, which were dearly won by the blood and sacrifice of them for us.
Frankly I doubt it's going to happen for the latter reason - the Obama team consists sufficiently of Clinton retreads who have learned the mores of that weird little micro-environment and what happens when they start to eat their own. Clinton's two biggest early mistakes were provoking the more or less nonpartisan D.C. infrastructure in Travelgate and provoking the overt partisan insiders of both parties by filching their FBI files in Filegate. The result was the weakening of the protection that those relationships afford. They were still running interference for him, of course (it's where we got "moveon.org") but not enough to prevent impeachment.
But the real radicals own a lot of microphones and are demanding loudly that a current Democrat majority in Congress that has been unable to accomplish anything else, cut out their pound of flesh for them, and it really doesn't matter much whose. Seasoned politicans know enough to run a cost/benefit analysis on such an action and it seems to me, at least, that it's not even close. That's not to say it couldn't happen - Pelosi and Reid are certainly stupid enough to ignore the warnings - but if it does they're very likely to be given the heave-ho by their own team. That's not quite what is meant by "civil war" but it isn't a bad working description of D.C.
You need to be more specific. You need to tell me what this hypothetical constitutional violation is. You and I live in a country that has been violating the Constitution almost every day for most of our lives. Hell, it can be argued (not necessarily by me) that Dubya probably did it with this war.
The last CW was over rebellion. An attempt to Balkinize North America over the right to own human beings for profit. By people trying to break up the United States.
In that case, doing anything but fighting for the United States would have been a violation of my oath.
But lets not get off on a tangent. I don't want this to devolve into a "the CW was not about slavery".
Sticking to the larger point, you forget FRiend that the oath we are discussing also says "and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
That POTUS would be Obama and God would be listening.
I knew I was not the only one. We get a few more to vote with their wallets and we may qualify for “grass roots movement” status.
I had the same experience in the shops.
Gold? “Nope.”
Silver? “Nope.”
“Junk” silver coins? “(laughs hysterically) No, and the guy who runs the antiques store next door says there is not a silver spoon, fork, platter, snuff box or picture frame to be found anywhere in the place, and don’t even think about looking for old jewelry.” I kid you not.
Ammo? “Only if you’re looking for pea gravel for your Wrist-Rocket.”
Guns? “I have more empty slots than guns in the case, and NOTHING in back. You can put down a 50% deposit and we’ll take your order. If our distributor has it in stock then it’ll be 3-5 days; if not, your guess is as good as mine.” This for a ubiquitous S&W M686 revolver?
Wood pellets? “We had two pallets but they sold out just before Christmas, and our supplier says he doesn’t know if we’ll be getting any more this season.” “THIS SEASON?”
If there is any kind of connection or pattern here, I am not seeing it. (/s)
I never said a thing about a “Civil War”.
I consider it ridiculous and, yes, counterproductive.
But, making up statistics doesn’t help, either.
I’m fine with being corrected. I admitted as much when I said I did not know that other had won by large %.
But I never said he won by a larger %. I was talking about larger vote. If I did say % I was wrong.
But you’re not too keen on being shown how childish you are when you choose to split hairs over a detail like % vs number (and I never said & so I was never wrong to begin with) in athread that is about vilent and bloody CW started by conservatives. This subject makes us look like lunatics, but you feel the need to press on over several posts about how I am wrong, wrong, wrong on how big Barry’s victory was.
We guess what pal, it was big enough and that was my only point.
There is only one person who needs to grow up between us and its you. Splitting hairs over the need to point out an error I never made. Grow up
I NEVER MADE UP ANYTHING! I stated that is was the largest popular vote margin and THAT IS TRUE!
None of you read my posts right. None. You all jumped on the % when I never said it was %!
So not is besides the point and I am not the one who is wrong.
I am going to war with you because you mispelled Kool Aid.
OK. I have learned not to talk to people who are so blind that they will not see. Buy a clue. I said I would defend me and mine from invaders. Good bye.
If the order said to round up all undesirables, and it listed conservatives and business owners as undesirables, would you follow it?
LOL!
I surrender! Finally so one who actually is correct about a mistake I made!
Judging by your tagline, this might not apply, but here goes, anyway.
Hypothetically speaking, let’s say the president has issued an executive order that all firearms in private (non military/LEO/aproved agency hands) be confiscated. Some comply, many do not. A particular group of holdouts not only does not comply, but is vocal about it.
The president orders military forces to confiscate the firearms, by force if needed, authorizes lethal force, house to house searches, etc. in order to accomplish the task.
If you were in the unit so assigned, would you comply with the order. If not, would you oppose it? How far would you be willing to go to defend the Second Amendment of the Constitution?
Next question. Suppose it was incontravertably revealed that (just for fun) the president was not Constitutionally qualified to be POTUS: that in fact, he was not a natural born citizen. As your oath is first to the Constitution, and his occupation of the office and usurpation of its powers would be an egregious violation of the Constitution, how would you react to that?
You’re right. that is why I’;ll stop talking to you. Because you are blind and clueless.
This article is about conservatives starting a “violent and bloody” CW. Your comments are irrelevant.
You obviously have not read my profile.
I guess I’ll humor you and spell it out. No.
My turn.
Are you telling me you believe that BHO is going to issue orders to the U.S. military to “round up” undesirables, including conservatives and business owners - roughly 40-50% of the country?
I said “tagline”, meant ‘screen name’ in 113, my bad.
There is no cognitive dissonance on my part. None. There is conflict of interests in your scenario however.
I will answer first by stating that I do not for one second believe that scenario is remotely possible. That is NOT the same as saying I do not believe BHO is anti 2nd amendment or will not have his Justice Department take on a very anti RTKBA stance.
However...
If that was the case I would be in a conflict of interests. I would do one of two things. Either request separation based on conscientious objector status, or complete the second part of my oath and leave service at the end of EOAS.
I, too, took the oath of service. Though mine was less glamorous. I was a Korean Linguist. The job, and my own personal research into North Korea and its cult of personality surrounding both Great Leader and Dear Leader (apparently, now referred to as Eternal Leader and Great Leader, respectively). The way the North Korean people were done in, and continue to be controlled, by the manipulation media, lack of education, replacing science with mandate, every home must have a portrait of their leader, all art must be inspired by their leader, etc... was eye-opening. The same thing occurred with the Nazis, and the Communists in Russia before them.
Quite frankly it scares the hell out of me, because I see those exact things going on here. Not full tilt. Do I expect an outright order for round-ups? No. Not at first. But neither did the Jews. At first, they were just discriminated against and ridiculed. Then it got worse. As the party in charge managed to increase the rhetoric, the hyperbole, and laid more and more blame on the Jews, the citizenry followed suit.
Those who disagreed with the regime either went along to get along, got out, or were discriminated against (or worse) by their own fellow citizens. Few dared to fight back. Those who did, were dealt with.
Eventually, enough power was held that the opposition was obliterated.
CWII ping. See TITLE!
Simply to parse the question is to realize its silliness.
The transitive verb countenance means, "to extend approval or toleration to;" to "sanction".
Thus, to "countenance" a second civil war, Mr. Obama would have to at least allow one to occur, and may actually approve of it. Which means, apparently, he would have to tolerate a war that presumably pits those who disagree with him, against the government that he now leads.
I suppose one could impute the requisite uber-Machiavellian motives and abilities to Mr. Obama, but it seems rather a stretch to do so.
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.