Posted on 10/25/2009 3:32:51 PM PDT by thisisthetime
>>> Apparently not, I say, citing the Obama administration.
>I agree.... Therefore, war is not necessary to preserve it.
But saying that war is not necessary to defeat it is NOT the same thing as saying war is not necessary to preserve it.
>Armed revolution may be very necessary if we do not have the same patience our enemies had in defeating us...
That we can still hope to win means we are not yet defeated.
>but we better start doing something quickly to combat this bloodless war, or a bloodbath is inevitable.
I personally think we have reached that point. Look at Congress and how they act with impunity regarding the law (freezer full of bribe-money anyone?) or how ALL branches of Government ignore the Constitution (No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. {That is to say, no laws regarding a specific group of people and no laws that are retroactive.} How do retroactive, punitive taxations strike you? How about retroactive repeal of immunities? Retroactive executive orders? Retroactive disparagement of rights? [Namely felons can’t have guns.] And the USSC can’t be bothered about any of these...), finally, to top it off, read the Declaration of Independence and note just how many of the complaints could be legitimately leveled against our government.
Agreed, but name your "Costs". I, for one, think our the respect for our country, our liberty and our Constitution have been spent on a bloodless(so far) coup. It may be time where the cost is more then we can overlook.
Are you speaking of war or revolution? I would put the revolution threshold at a suspended democratic election, which we have not yet come close to experiencing.
You have a great observation. We shall never be at an internal war. I do, however, feel a revolt coming. At that point I shall not look at it as “At what cost.” Instead, as I look though my kitchen at my 12 yo old son lying on the floor in the family room watching the Cardinals and Giants, it is to what “End”.
>>> But saying that war is not necessary to defeat it is NOT the same thing as saying war is not necessary to preserve it.
The statement was an axiom. If it’s true for one side, then it stands to reason that it is true for the other.
In order for freedom to be regained without bloodshed, my point was that it would take 30 years to re-educate the general populace as it has taken 30 years to void it of it’s core values. However, that would still require regaining control of the media and the education system before the process could begin.
>>> I personally think we have reached that point.
I believe you may be correct.
We are the victims of a very patient and long term takeover of the hearts and minds of our younger generations.
However, even armed confrontation may not be enough to regain what we have lost.
I think that’s where God comes in.
There is a saying I picked up from my philosophy teacher:
“Peace is not the absence of war, but the presence of Justice.”
The injustices of the country, the ones that are wholly preventable, are numerous. But there are two that are truly grievous:
-The legally-sanctioned mass-murder of the unborn.
-The presence of “protected classes” tolerated within out legal-system.
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.