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.
Then came la Terreur ...
Do you recall how Dr. Guillotine died?
O ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose, not only the tyranny, but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia, and Africa, have long expelled her.—Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.
Thanks. What this says is clear and God’s truth.
I sent this to all my Email contacts.
What cave in Texas are you living in? LOL!
Well, we see the result. The nation's demographics are changing, with Democrats now taking several states that were once solid GOP. Most people under age 30, educated by MTV and the publik skools, lean far to the left and are indifferent to their own nation's survival. Speech codes are sprouting up. Diversity training seminars tell us what beliefs we're allowed to hold, at risk of being fired for straying too far outside the PC realm. People increasingly define freedom not as free speech, political liberty, economic liberty, or religious liberty, but as having a “right” to health care, housing, or other goodies, and as a “right” not to be offended by non-PC speech.
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.
“Conservatives” and “Republicans” are separate terms. Republicans are going to have to earn the votes.
I don't disagree with you and think that we would be better off with a separate group of states with conservative principles forming a new country. I'm in the part of Virginia that would certainly vote to stay with the left wing liberals, unfortunately.
However, as I said, when it was tried the last time, the result was a rather decisive victory for the "once in, never out" side. What do you think B. Hussein Obama would do if, say, 20 states voted in a plebiscite to negotiate an orderly succession from the United States? Do you have any doubt whatsoever that his reaction would be the same as it was in 1861? Exactly what would happen when he ordered the US Military to capture the governor and legislature of the succeeding states is a difficult question.
Or, suppose it's 2013 and John McCain has served one term as President and decided not to run for a second. Sarah Palin has been elected President with another election in which the country was geographically divided. 20 states, including all of New England, California, Oregon, Washington and the Great Lakes states have a plebiscite in which they vote to succeed and join the European Union (California and New Mexico vote to become part of Mexico.) In this case, I hope the reaction would be to wave goodbye and start installing the fences.
The point being that the left and right might view succession differently.
Jack
Oh, yes, and I should have commented on this aspect: The constant attempt around here to link modern, far left, totalitarian, multiculturalist Democrats with the Democrats of the post-Civil War era is beyond bizarre. It’s like telling a conservative voter in North Carolina in 1984 that he should have voted against Reagan & Helms because the GOP was the party that invaded their state in the Civil War and later imposed Reconstruction on them. We’ve had a record number of posts this year arguing that blacks should reject Obama because the Dems housed anti-black politicians circa 1898 or 1936, as if that has any relevance whatsoever today. Anyone posting that “Martin Luther King was a Republican” stuff must truly think blacks are stupid. Either that, or they think we’re stupid.
I can see the next Congress releasing all in prisons that will aid the Cause. Many of the thugs are born organizers, probably smarter than Oboomerang.
This will be ugly. Those of us who do not fall in line will be eliminated, not just jailed.
If you don’t know how to pray, you had better start. And I don’t mean to allah (no caps for demigods). This could be the last chance for those sitting on the spiritual fence.
I was there once. No more. They can take my life, but not my soul. I am just a pilgrim here. Thank You, Jesus.
But, but, but, the Constitution is a ‘living’ document that needs to be brought into a contemporary interpretation, no?
bump
The North and South could have survived without one another. If the South had won and gone their separate way, it would have simply been another case of a region breaking off from an established nation, something that has happened many times in history.
But liberals cannot survive without conservatives. If we were to somehow ideologically segregate the nation, and then split it into two countries, the leftist nation would degenerate into savagery literally within hours. There would be hordes of people clamoring to get across the border into the rightist side in no time.
It isn’t that all liberals are dependent people. Some are quite wealthy. But those wealthy liberals use the conservative middle class as a buffer against the large number of liberals who are indeed dependent, prone to violence, and culturally degraded. If we were to split into separate leftist and righting nations, the upscale white leftists such as Kos, Streisand, and all the others would find themselves outvoted immediately by the welfare crazed, affirmative action demanding masses wanting “housing”, “health care”, racial preferences, and so forth. They need a conservative presence in society as a buffer to allow them to indulge their liberal fantasies against the reality of what socialism and diversity really mean.
Should a few thousands of "reporters" go on extended camping trips, the remainder may not be in a mood for espousing their commie rhetoric.
Just asking ...
“Fiddle-dee-dee.
War, war, war.
This war talk's spoiling all the fun at every party this spring.
I get so bored I could scream.
Besides, there isn't going to be any war!" — Scarlett O'Hara in Gone With the Wind
Considering the racist hatred shown by blacks on the subject of Obama, and tossing in the known violence left-wingers are prone to when they don’t get their way, I’m glad left-wingers don’t believe in firearms and we do.
“It was decided between 1861 and 1865 that the Constitution is a “once in, never out” document.”
I like to think of it as “Might is Right”. The South just had less might, but not anymore. The liberal north is weak and morally corrupt and has lost its manufacturing that gave it the advantage in the Civil War.
“’Conservatives’ and ‘Republicans’ are separate terms.”
Well said. The Republican party more closely supports the conservative American viewpoint.
This guy's right, historically, it's not our side that nourishes the fruit of violence. I think a PUMA will attempt to take him out, we'll get blamed and you'll be right; they'll round up the guns.
Bingo. That is the crux of the issue. Had we been divided by geographical lines, we'd be divorced already.
And I think it would be a lot less painful that way. As it is, one side has to hold victory over the other.
I'm just afraid because it appears that Socialism always wins. Heck, it's crept over the planet like a disease. We're the only Western nation that's kept it at bay this long.
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.