![the Alamo battle]](http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/adp/resources/images/deguello.jpg){kind=link}
Posted on 06/23/2010 8:20:39 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Excellent and thought-provoking post!
” Most conservative leaders have done the same. “
I would say most of the neocons, and elitist Republicans, but your point is well taken.
Ahhh, the "middle ground." Perhaps this can now be seen as one of the most dangerous concepts ever unleashed upon our Nation. How much effort has been brought forth over decades to convince the majority of our population to revere and respect the "middle ground?" These forces have been very successful (all the while fully understanding that the "middle ground" was not their goal at all) at brainwashing large segments of our population that we must avoid those nasty "extremes," especially those from and of the Right.
This has brought us lukewarm politicians of all stripes that firmly believe that "go along to get along" is the wisest strategy (and perhaps it surely is for their self-interest). It has brought educators, parents, and religious and social leaders that extoll the virtues of "seeking compromise," "finding a consensus," and striving to "meet in the middle." Of course their pedantic examples and illustrations of the wisdom and virtue of this approach rest on its application to overly simplistic and trivial matters (in which the choices of what is "right" or "wrong" are based solely on non-objective opinions).
It has brought us to the point in which a network claiming to be "fair and balanced" is the only one that will broadcast about 10% of the real news and information available on a given day (and at least give some voice to those that are brave enough to speak truthfully). But how many of that network's hosts sit there with a straight and solemn face while guests appear to spew outright LIES and provide "justification" for pure EVIL?
"Fair and balanced" is an appropriate stance when the ideas and policies being debated are equal in their foundation in TRUTH. However, once the equation turns to the point at which one of the stances is the voice of EVIL and enslaving TYRANNY, "fair and balanced" is no longer an appropriate stance.
It is our fellow citizens that "just want to get along" and are still motivated by a selfishly weak need to "want to be liked" by those that are seeking to impose complete TYRANNY on us all, either by their ignorant action or inaction. Does it really matter that these useful idiots are somehow related to them or have been "friends" for many decades? Are they so willfully ignorant and blinded to the TRUTH? Would they offer the same level of respect and "tolerance" to these "friends" or relatives that would approach them at gunpoint and demand that their property be seized by others? Then what weakness inside them causes the blindness to the fact that this more subtle attack will lead to the same result?
I believe that one of the most vital fronts in the current war being waged is for those that know what the TRUTH represents (and precisely what EVIL is waging against it) to step forth and boldly declare our belief in the TRUTH (and to steadfastly resist all pleas and demands that we move from it to find "compromise"). And to be willing to understand that there is no "middle ground" to be sought, no "compromise" to be found with those that either actively or passively fight against it. We must all be willing to take a stand for the Freedoms and Liberties that are being eroded with each passing day. What good will remain for any of us by "getting along" with a brother/sister when our lives are reduced to the enslavement of each other and all of our children? What value will be preserved by insisting that we need to be "liked" by a lifelong friend once neither of us any longer has a claim to our own lives?
It is very easy to speak the TRUTH toward and at those that we have no close association with (the ones that we are comfortable labeling as the enemy). And because of the fact that there are no personal ties with those people, it is far too easy for them to dismiss us. However, when a person is confronted with the clear and distinct message that we will no longer value our relationship with them (and refuse to silently go through the pretenses of maintaining one) over our desire to reclaim the Freedoms and Liberties that our Nation once stood for, maybe that friend or relative will start to wake up. Maybe even more quickly if they find that many of us become willing to firmly take the same stance.
If we are not willing to sacrifice our "comfort" and security by taking such a stand as this, how can we continue to delude ourselves that we will ever take a stand when our lives are more directly and forcefully threatened?
They are either too lazy, too fat, too into themselves, or too occupied with their reputations to sacrifice even a dime for some revolt.
Agreed.
The key word is ‘sacrifice a dime’....as in too worried about holding to what(wealth,possessions,property) they have NOW rather then risk it all in an open rebellion.
If their is an open rebellion, it will be waged by those have NOTHING to lose.
Amen to that!
I agree. I’ve been saying for a while that the battle lines and the structure for resistance are the state lines. So far it has been limited to legal battles. What may prove to be the test is the Feds going after guns. Or it may turn out to be militias in the border states going after Mexican drug cartels.
It would be encouraging to see a number of states doing the right thing on illegals rather than letting AZ hang out there all by itself. As you said, it would be best if a number of states stood together and just said “no” to all the crap coming out of DC.
At any rate, either of those issues could be the one that tests the resolve for a shooting war. Amnesty by executive order might do it, too, come to think of it.
Yes, but it’s almost completely rebuilt.
We are fortunate we live in these times. First, we play the SantaAnna *cutthroat song* El Deguello [made famous at the Alamo battle] for our enemies, and let those of them who understand its meaning tremble at our eventually unleashed wrath.
And then afterward, at our victory celebration, we get to enjoy ourselves with the ZZ Top version. Yee-haw! Tesro bisra yudaha Nepalbata suru hunchaa!
Who will win?
My bet is on the Right.
God fights on the side with the best artillery."
- Napoleon Bonaparte.
CWII Ping. This could go badly and be the one that pulls the trigger.
” but there can no longer be organized resistance with the technology and resources the various intell agencies have nowadays. “
And those systems are perfectly hardened agains’t any and all attacks? What was theirs can be ours. Those systems are not all seeing, all hearing, and all knowing. They are also used by humans with significant faults of their own.
It isn’t NECESSARY, but indeed, it’s nearly inevitable.
If the left would allow states to be sovereign and not subject to their control, then there wouldn’t be any thought of violence in order to maintain liberty.
But, that’s asking a leftist to not be a leftist.
absolutely... 
Funny, you identify something that should be a considerable concern for those of us who are NOT going to just sit idly by inside the cocoon of the “middle ground”...
That “middle ground” will certainly reject us and fight against us when the time comes...So it is best to not try to identify ourselves by attempting to convince anyone we see as not totally committed to the cause, when that time does come...
Thats just the way I see it...
Civil wars are fought with weapons over ideas. Those who have power have never in history willingly surrendered it without force. Unfortunately history points in that direction.
Perhaps my post was too subtle.
Definition of Pseudo:
not genuine: not authentic or sincere, in spite of appearances.
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.