Posted on 12/22/2009 10:45:51 AM PST by Patriot1259
“Protests that cannot be ignored”? No such thing. You guys put a half million people on the Mall last summer and the world ignored the living crap out of you. You could put a million there tomorrow and it would be the same thing. Unless you control the new media, you don’t exist.
If you really wanted to do something with a real impact, you Tea Party guys would just stop filing your yearly federal, state, and local tax returns. That’s all you have to do. That hurts them. I guarantee you they wouldn’t ignore that protest.
So go ahead, Nathan Hale. Defy the Powers That Be for real, if you’ve got the guts. I promose to be impressed if you do. And when you get to the prison you’ll be staying at, drop us a line. If they let you.
I hear you, B Chan.
The march on DC was not for the world, though, my friend.
It was to remind the majority that they exist. People in larger and larger numbers have been able to personally witness the deception.
I appreciate the promise of raised eyebrows for the Nathan Hailing. But, as you say, I think we all know it will be a dark walk with only the light of principle and high concepts as beacons. And those beacons have begun to capture and compel more and more people tired of the insanity and madness witnessed.
As far as where we all are “staying at”, it will take energy and solid ideas to move forward. Please have your “us” join my “us” to do some good.
And have a Merry Christmas.
B-Chan,
I enjoyed reading your posts and profile.
I am pretty darn sure your “us” is my “us”.
Merry Christmas, you talented Scotsman!
Interesting bit of eschatology. I’m more of a “new heavens and new earth” type. But I must respectfully take issue with your approach, in that it assumes an outcome not in evidence. I for one do not believe this is necessarily the end, or if it is, I do not subscribe to the idea that we know exactly how it will play out. If not even Jesus can claim to know the true timing of the Second Coming, I think that puts us under an obligation to strive for freedom until that final, unequivocal trumpet sounds forth.
In that context, the worst thing we could do is to prematurely shut down options for resistance or escape. It is mental surrender, and it will cause a worsening of the situation. People act according to their real beliefs. If some states decide to act corporately to defend freedom, no one knows what the dynamics of that decision will be. It is as likely as not that the military and law enforcement personnel assigned to reign in the “rebels” will be significantly conflicted about acting against their fellow citizens, as you suggest, but on both sides of the conflict. Most of the “escapes” that would occur under such a scenario would be the result of incomplete allegiance to the emerging socialist state.
But there has to be a place to go. That’s why we look to Texas, and others, to stand firm. There is nothing inevitable about any of this, except from God’s inside perspective. He has not personally told me to quit and embrace my family’s and my country’s demise. So I won’t. Freedom is the power to do one’s duty before God. The Egyptians were an impossibly advanced enemy relative to Israel, yet God provided a way through the sea. Until he comes back, he will always provide for at least a remnant of his people to endure upon the earth, so that there will always be some who can do their duty before God. Otherwise Paul would not be able to speak of those “who are alive and remain” until the return of Jesus.
Therefore, till he returns, freedom will always exist somewhere. It remains a duty then to us, with his help, either to find it, or to create it where we are, till he comes.
“it would be for my entire country.”
One State at a time. First Texas, then move on to the others.
Who’s to say the feds would have the gumption to keep a state from seceding if the state really looked serious about it? What president or congress would want to call out the troops to wage war against Texas? I imagine they’d get plenty of letters from New Yorkers and Californians and Vermonters saying they’d be happy to see Texas go. After all, that would mean two fewer Republicans in the Senate. Obviously most Americans wouldn’t be happy about it but I’ll bet they’d rather lose Texas than fight another civil war. Who would have the stomach for that? Who would the Civil War II hawks be? I think if push came to shove the government would roll over and go along to get along and let Texas go. There probably wouldn’t be a single shot fired.
You'd lose that bet.
It will never happen.
Texas is, in my estimation, currently about 30 percent conservative, 40 percent liberal (as in, socialist), and about 30 percent barely right of center. Texas is no where near as conservative as, say, Oklahoma or Utah.
Most people would have no stomach for a civil war. Easier just to let Texas go. Liberals would be glad to jettison some rednecks; conservatives would be sympathetic to the cause. Moderate types wouldn’t want to have their 401k disrupted. The president would be under all kinds of pressure not to send in the troops. Keep in mind that I’m not talking about a ragtag militia movement within a state but an actual state getting its act together and seceding.
There is no rational argument I can make agaisnt that approach.
Let me know when you'd like to be oficially recognized by the Republic of Texas as Independent California, or whatever you'll call yourselves. :-)
Maybe, but the decision to fight wont be made by a vote of the general public. It will be made a president and/or congress. What politician wants to go down in history as one who permitted the dissolution of the USA? Answer: none. It would be political suicide. Therefore, he/they will decide to fight.
Only if Texas broke up into smaller states or if enough other states joined to keep the new confederacy from just being Greater Texas.
It's hard to see Oklahoma or Louisiana signing up to be a perpetual tail to Texas's big dog, a permanent junior partner.
But is this idea really going to go anywhere?
Secession means the terrorists have won.
Nothing is imposed; rather, it's a bottoms up organic approach. Once our own federal monster dissolves away like a bad dream, then the states will most likely come to the conclusion that they should maintain some type of inter-commerce and shared defense responsibilities.
Keep in mind that the only thing modern Americans see as justifying the Civil War I was that it ended slavery. There would be no such clear moral justification for Civil War II. People would see their fellow Americans making a principled stand based on their sense of liberty, without a morally repugnant ulterior motive. Would they really be gung ho to send in the troops to stop that? I doubt it.
“So therefore, we would seal our border not only with Mexico, but also with the United States.”
We will cerainly allow those who offer improvements to the overall population mix though, not lower its citizenship standards.
“So therefore, we would seal our border not only with Mexico, but also with the United States.”
We will cerainly allow those who offer improvements to the overall population mix though, not lower its citizenship standards.
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.