The Winds Of Civil War: Illinois-Driven Marxist Attempt To Conquer Union

Pat Dollard ^ | Feb 20, 2009 | Pat Dollard

[Islander7]

New Hampshire fired the first shot. Although 7 other states have similar pending resolutions and bills, Oklahoma is the first to actually pass one. Another 27 states are expected to make similar moves in the coming months. That’ll leave the country split 71-29.

Now, before you get too excited, bear in mind that all of this was likely Obama’s goal. Boiled down, all of these state measures are threats of secession. Recall, if you will, Obama’s obsession to be the 21st Century Abraham Lincoln, and his ominous calls to recreate and rebuild America. Who was Lincoln? Why, he was the man who “preserved” the Union by way of implementing military force against states that had seceded. Lincoln knew full well that he would not be preserving the Union, but that he would be conquering sovereign nations, and that he would then have to destroy their cultures and ideologies, remaking both in the image of the North’s. And that is precisely what happened in the aftermath of Lincoln’s war of aggression. He didn’t preserve the Union, he changed it forever and handed unprecedented powers to the Federal Government.

Okay, so now I’m going to run with a theory.

[redgolum]

Except the requirements for amending can be changed by Congress.

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

All ya’ gotta do is Find some,,,

Think “Ol’Mother Hubbard”...:0/

[Blood of Tyrants]

I got to serve on one criminal jury but it was a child abuse case and both parents were guilty as hell. I was hoping for an “illegal gun possession” case but, oh well.

[SuperLuminal]

"The Proud and Extremely Ethical United States Military WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN"

Maybe not now. But wait till oscumbo's military fagotization program has been completed and all the good people driven out.

[STARWISE]

~~ PING and pray .......

[XenaLee]

No, but considering the commie aholes in power, they DO have to CYA and attempt to moderate the rhetoric that is, no doubt, showing up in Einstein’s keyword search patterns even as we speak.

We need to learn to converse in code, in other words. Big Bro is listening, watching and learning. And you’re on report!

[XenaLee]

Why yes. I do believe you’re right. All those liberal “utopias” are going down the toilet (the perfect place for leftist cesspools). Meanwhile, here in Texas, a non-union, right to work state, we’re still doing relatively well. But if left up to Zero and his minions, that will all change, of course.

[Candor7]

Next Obama moves:

1) End all volunteer military

2) Allow open gays in military

3) Reinstate the draft for both sexes

4) Allow draft waivers for Community service (Acorn etc.)

5) Establish a volunteer Acorn paramilitary.

Obama has the his trainers lined up already.

They will fight and they will kill fellow Americans. The military would not.This is why Obama needs a civilian armed paramilitary force.

And if Texans will fight them, I will go to Texas!

[RipSawyer]

DO NOT FILE A TAX RETURN!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Most are due a refund for taxes already paid, they need to file a return to get it. Everyone should file a new W-4 and claim enough exemptions to stop deductions for income taxes but that won’t stop FICA.

[Nowhere Man]

Folks, here are comments from a very good friend with insight. Ahhhh, but consider the states that are currently providing the bulk of the troops to Federal Authority – they are the very states that provide most of the cannon fodder. People aren’t so easily led around by their noses anymore in this age of instant communication. The South, you will recall, was isolated, almost totally agrarian, lacked infrastructure, and was broke from day one. Loyalties will not break along the Mason Dixon Line, not even close. There won’t be a single consolidated region in revolt. There will pockets and bubbles and territories. States will split up in terms of loyalties. Look at southern Missouri and southern Illinois. Look at northern California and northern Louisiana. This is potentially a battle of red vs. blue, rural vs. urban. If it becomes a war, it can’t be a war of fronts and armies in maneuver. There could be an inter-military fight between those still loyal to the current power structure vs. those like us. We would win out on that one from force of numbers. After all, where would the bulk of loyalty of armed civilians lie? Yes, with the cause of overthrow of tyranny. Therfore, I see it as more of a coup. The people of St. Louis aren’t going to march on Potosi, MO to conquer hinterland territory for BO.

This sounds like something thart was predicted on John Titor's site. He is a supposed time traveller from 2036 who came back to 1975 and 2000 and in the latter year that at one point we will have a civil war between rural and urban.

John Titor

[Nowhere Man]

Ah, another John Titor enthusiast, I'm a Titor junky myself. BTW, I do think that until there is some proof, the people or person behind the Titor story is most likely a conservative/libertarian who is using the story as a warning to where we are headed or could be headed. I don't discount the time traveller theory all the way albeit I'm dubious until there is proof, but I'd like to keep the door cracked because you never can know.

With the 2004 election, I thought that we could have derailed Titor (I'm just assuming the story is true or nearly so for sake of argument) since he said 2005 was the key year. Well, looking at what he said, there are some uncanny coincidences here, albeit he was 4 years off it seems. So perhaps 2008 was 2004 to him in his timeline and so on. Titor did even say there are infinite universes out there so maybe the schism in his timeline happened in 2004/05 whereas it could happen in 2009/2010 in hours.

Even my father made the same predictions of a civil war happening in our lifetimes although he's been saying that since 1973 or so.

[virgil]

yes. I think it’s become apparent that the federal gov’t is not going to reduce itself. It’s high time for the states to step up and undelegate it’s powers. True, the states can be just as tyrannical, but I think that without the overgrown gorilla in washington to give them cover and draw attention away, it will make the states more accountable.

[ForGod'sSake]

May I suggest adding a link to the 10th amendment center in your ping graphic?

Excellent idea. In fact there are several good sites that would be good links for reference and archival resources. Thanks for the tip.

[mo]

“I think this is precisely why Obama is creating his Civilian Army...”

That’s what this is...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/27/republican-leaders-raise-concerns-acorn-stimulus-dollars/

[El Gato]

The constitution prohibits the military from being used against the people.

It does no such thing. It's silent on the issue, but the militia, the organized portion of which is the National Guard, may indeed be called forth "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

That's from Art I, section 8. Section 9 contains those things Congress, and thus the federal goverment, may not do, using the Army to "suppress Insurections" is not one of them.

The Posse Commitatus *law* does prohibit use of the Army and Air Force to enforce the laws, and the Marines and Army are prohibited from doing so by regulation. Regulations are changeable with the stroke of a pen, the DemonRats have shown they can pass, and thus change, the law PDQ when they want.

[El Gato]

Were General Grant and General Lee, classmates at West Point?/Just Asking - seoul62.......

As others have said, they were not classmates. But they had both served in the Mexican war. Grant resigned his commission but "went active" again after the CW started. Lee was very reluctant to go against the Union, but in the end his Loyalty to Virgina outweighed that to the Union. It was a different time, with most people identifying much more with their states than we do today.

[El Gato]

The constitution allows the states to call a constitutional convention any time they like. The sole purpose in this case would be for:

The sole purpose of the original Constitutional Convention was to amend the Articles of Confederation. The articles required that any such amendments be adopted unanimously. The Convention through out the articles and put the Constitution in it's place, but only required 9 of the 13 (and then 14) states to ratify for it to go into effect.

Once a Constitutional Convention starts, it cannot be limited in scope as you propose.

[Southbound]

Don't think so...Congress can propose “one or the other mode of ratification”, but apparently cannot change the basic method of amendment....again, see Article V of the Constitution. Like I said, it ain't easy OR simple, which is why we only have 27 amendments in 220 years or so. Exactly what the Founding Fathers intended.

[Southbound]

You may be right on the money. Civil war is certainly not the desire of any sane person, but if it comes to that.....I've been a bitter clinger for a long time, and will defend my castle to the utmost. Not that I have very much ut to defend in this day and age.....or to look forward to. Wonder where I can load up on camo tinfoil.......

[El Gato]

The constitution allows the states to call a constitutional convention any time they like. The sole purpose in this case would be for:

IF the Convention followed the current Constittion, any changes/amendments, including one reading "delete everything after "We the People" and substitute...." would still require ratification by a super majority of the states. BUT that ratification could be by state conventions, rather than the state legislatures. The Constitution is silent on how the delegates to such a convention would be picked, by the states.