Could This Really End In War?

vanity | January 31, 2009 | Jim Noble

[supremedoctrine]

Correction: halfway through my post, should’ve read “generations of taxpayer’s money......” not “generations of, “

[cowboyway]

Your argument might engender more discussion if you start out saying that you believe an attempt to confiscate guns at the behest of the UN could result in civil war. And no, I don't think it would result in Civil War.

Nor do I. We haven't talked about the role that the Obama media would play.

Anybody that would resist gun confiscation would be simply portrayed as a Waco, Ruby Ridge or Timothy McVeigh type of wacko and the sheeple at their cocktail parties in Manhattan, DC, San Francisco and LA would nod their heads and say 'good riddance'.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Yes, but what happens when some states realize that all of the debt that is being placed on their backs by the fed actually costs them more than being in the union gets them?

I think there’s a real possibility of this happening. It would be an attempt for peaceful secession by states, less for ideological reasons, and more for pure fiscal ones. As the needless government debt piles on the backs of citizens, it will be the only recourse they have.

It’s interesting to think of the logistics of how it would work, how you would deal with old folks who rely on SS that they’d no longer be receiving, the post office, etc...

Of course, I have little doubt that a man like Obama, who wouldn’t dream of fighting a foreign enemy, would use the most brutal force necessary to stop a secession though. However, that would only fan the flames.

A lot of folks balk at the idea of such a civil war occurring, because it will fundamentally change all of our lives in unimaginable ways. I understand how they feel, but I’d rather spend my life in turmoil so my children have a chance at a good life. As it stands now, their futures are being mortgaged by our government.

[Jim Noble]

I didn’t see the Arthur McGowan thread, so I am in the dark as to what was proposed as the grounds for a possible civil war

It was a vanity which openly advocated a certain extraconstitutional action. Threads like that are not allowed here.

[cripplecreek]

Also there’s the fact that a huge majority of people from across the ideological spectrum would oppose secession. It would do little more than weaken us all.

I’m all for states rights but I’m not ready to fight an unwinnable war that would leave us with even less rights to get it.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

You folks are talking about civil wars similar to the US Civil War, in which one region tries to secede from the central authority. There are also civil wars like the British Civil War, and the civil wars in late Republican Rome, in which the factions were intermingled, and both sides were seeking to take control of the central authority.

[theBuckwheat]

A peaceful way out would be a Constitutional Convention.

[nathanbedford]

You set for us and intriguing hypothesis.

I guess you pinged me, Jim, because you know that I have been concerned for some time that Obama might use a path which you have outlined as a flank attack on the Constitution. The supreme court case you cite was an executive agreement matter, not a treaty, and moreover it affected directly constitutional rights of the individual. I think Obama, if he follows this path, well go after our economic rights by making treaties concerning global warming and submitting to United Nations diktats. The latter can come close to affecting our rights but not as individuals, for example, by abolishing capital punishment which circumscribes the power of the state but not of a criminal defendant.

I think DarkWolf's boiling frog analogy is a good one and I think that even if Obama were to try the treaty route as a way of undermining our hated capitalist system, he would do so by degrees moving from the economic sphere to the personal liberties sphere.

So I do not expect a civil war. I Do not expect a military coup. I do not expect civil unrest even led by a bunch of middle-aged, overweight FReepers. If there is civil unrest, it will be put down immediately by the authorities and marginalized by the media. If there is civil unrest I think, funnily enough, it will not be precipitated by a grand issue but by some trivial matter which seizes the emotions of the people.

But I do expect that somehow the left will overreach and violate the Constitution and tread on our birthrights. My ancestors fought the British and the Yankees by taking their rifle from over their hearth and defending that hearth and their birthright. But repression by the state in the modern age if it should come, to paraphrase Churchill, will be made more terrible by the lights of perverted science. Our physical options will be empty. We simply cannot prevail in violence against the modern state. It must be undermined like the Berlin wall. Those methods prevailed in the era shaped by Gorbachev but would have had no chance against a Stalin.

It may be that there is no cure and therefore we must look only to prevention.

[meyer]

Also there’s the fact that a huge majority of people from across the ideological spectrum would oppose secession. It would do little more than weaken us all.

It is interesting that the thought of secession is being bandied about with some regularity these days. I agree that it would weaken this country, but at some point and given the socialist/communist direction that this country is heading, one might consider that for the betterment of the future of the world, a weakening might be a positive thing.

Don't misread what I'm saying as if I'm advocating secession - take it to mean that there are other factors to consider. For if we're to be the next USSR, then by all means destruction is the preferred choice. But in our present situation, there are more plausable solutions, and those should be our choice for now.

[SunkenCiv]

I think the war will come if and when Soetero and Reid use the treaty power and their interpretation of the Supremacy clause to overturn the sovereignty of the People of the United States. The Court will overturn Reid v. Covert 5-4, based on "an evolving society" since 1957, and each side will have a perfectly rational and defensible position based on the plain language of the Constitution. You cannot reconcile the Supremacy clause and the structure of the government otherwise laid out in the Constitution. If the treaty power is used to overturn the rights of the People, either the Supremacy clause or the Constitution itself will fall.

[supremedoctrine]

Correction: halfway through my post, should’ve read “generations of taxpayer’s money......” not “generations of, “

[NTHockey]

>>Officers ARE commissioned by him, and serve at his pleasure. They ARE bound to follow his (legal) orders.<<

Officers serve the United States, not ANY President. They make a commitment to serve X years and are NOT subject to dismissal for political reasons.

As for legal orders, there is following and then there is with all speed.

Otherwise, good article. I too pray that we will be saved from a disastrous calamity. However, I am realistic enough to know that we cannot continue as a nation with so much hatred between opposing camps.

[cripplecreek]

the factions were intermingled, and both sides were seeking to take control of the central authority.

In that sense we're already in a civil war and it has weakened us.

[The Mayor]

I just did a search for Reid v. Covert on google, I didn’t know what it was. But every link on google said This site may harm your computer. I couldn’t get to any link. So I did the same on Yahoo and had no problem......

This makes me curious.

[M Kehoe]

Good morning.

It may be that there is no cure and therefore we must look only to prevention.

Sound advise, and I agree. Although, take note. I am over middle age, but not over weight. I have much military training. I have taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I would rather die on my feet, than live on my knees. Period.

5.56mm

[Darkwolf377]

"My ancestors fought the British and the Yankees by taking their rifle from over their hearth"

Don't forget me, your token Yankee FRiend if the bullets start flying again. I'm not like the others up here in Boston, really! :P

[deks]

Same here...seems Google is blocking it, and is also blocking all search results for “supremacy clause”.

Instead goes to a page titled:
Warning - visiting this web site may harm your computer!

[wastoute]

Once the Dems successfully turn 20 million illegals into voting Dems with the assistance (insistence?) of ACORN we really have no hope of regaining any kind of authority within the system. The Dems can pass any legislation they like and Zero (the impostor) will sign it. Logically, if we are to retain any of our Civil Liberties they will have to be regained through extralegal means. How this comes about will have to be played out if it happens at all. Again logically the options are these it seems to me 1) secession of some part of the current U.S. to which those of us who want to preserve our liberties and values can flee, 2) military coup in which some high level patriots temporarily assume control and deport "folks no longer wanted" in this country, 3) a spontaneous insurrection, sort of a Right Wing version of the Russian Revolution of 1917 in which a number of individuals mount a violent overthrow of the institutions of power.

If someone sees other options I certainly would like to know of them. In this country much has always been made of the peaceful transfer of power every 4 or 8 years. I suspect this has happened for the last time. I read in another thread how college students had stolen crosses and defaced them with condoms and the like. I read in the Old Testament that The Lord commanded Israel to be gracious hosts of foreigners in their midst but they were under no circumstances to allow those foreigners to worship false gods. It seems to me that we have violated The Lords requirements in this nation. We have allowed even our own people to erect idols of Human Secularism and worship them publicly while defacing and mocking our values and God himself. Personally I hope for number two above, that some military authority break with the gummint and do something similar to what Singapore did years ago. Arrest and deport those who are wrecking our country from within. Perhaps then we could do what needs to be done rather bloodlessly. Sure it violates their civil liberties, but logically I don't see how we can extend to others courtesies they would deny us.

Like I said above, if someone can see some other way we are to preserve our society and nation I would sure like to hear it.

Μολὼν λάβε

[Marauder]

As a retiree, I’m way too far out of the loop to speak with a lot of authority, but there are some presumptions I can make with respect to Ubama:
1. Texas may uniquely have the right to secede per her treaty of annexation, but anyone who thinks the fedgov will stand by and allow that is IMO seriously mistaken;
2. whether any war that erupts on these shores is Civil War II or Rev War II, I don’t see the military splitting up;
3. his group ACORN may be the real harbinger of ugly things to come, because if they’re situated in all the key states, there may well never be another honest election again in this country until that particular threat is neutralized;
4. another key event that will start some REAL trouble will be when a movement to repeal the presidential term limits Amendment begins to gain traction, and ACORN would likely be involved in that as well.
Personally, I’m fortunate in that these events if they occur would more than likely happen after I’m gone, but I worry about my kids and theirs. I guess the best I can do for them is to pray for them and make sure they understand exactly WHY I don’t trust Ubama any further than I can throw my pickup truck.

[deks]

Google is messed up. It’s blocking all searches.