The Next Civil War

In 1861 America fought a civil war over slavery, States’ rights and economic differences between North and South. The opening shots of a second civil war were fired one hundred years later.

War began on college campuses with rebellion against academic and civil authorities. Hostages were taken, buildings occupied. There were riots and bombings. Students and police were killed and wounded. Anarchists joined civil rights activists and so-called “peace” activists in violent anti-war, anti-capitalism riots. In common was the attack on society and the Constitution in favor of an ill-defined “just” society to be created. Civil society suppressed the foul-mouthed radical students, the anarchists and the leftists but did not defeat them.

Student leaders ducked out of public sight, moved into academia, the unions, environmentalism and charitable foundations for support. There they prospered and wove virulent anti-capitalist, anti-American political philosophies into the fabric of these organizations. They gave up violence in favor of foisting their theories of social and economic “justice” on our brightest students, on our teachers and on politicians. These radicals worked quietly behind the scenes to gain control of the media, Hollywood, the schools and colleges and the Democrat Party.

Today, a majority of CEOs of big corporations and Wall Street financial institutions (Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs of Apple, Bill Gates and the leadership of Goldman-Sachs for example!) support the Progressive agenda. The election of Obama brought these radicals back into power.

The battle lines of this new war for the future of America are now drawn. On the left, leaders of the Progressive movement are wealthy, highly educated, extremely intelligent and masterful in their use of language to advance their issues. They are guided by the belief that a group of selfless, brilliant leaders using reason and logic can perfect humanity, eliminate injustice and famine and save the earth from mankind. They are ruthless in their belief that desired ends justify any means of attaining them. They believe the Constitution is outdated and flawed, needing of change. They favor more government regulation, taxation and litigation to achieve their Utopian goals.

Opposing the political left are traditionalists who believe in the relevance of the Constitution, the enduring wisdom of the Founders, smaller government, individual freedoms and individual responsibilities. Fewer, by way of comparison, are wealthy and have degrees from Ivy League colleges. But many have wisdom gleaned from dealing with realities rather than social theories. They don’t believe that any group of leaders, selfless or otherwise, is capable of making decisions wiser than citizens would make for themselves.

Most of the Progressive leaders have shunned military service considering it best suited to those of lesser intellect. They oppose strong national defense in favor of diplomacy. They disdain patriotic displays as nationalistic and misguided. They count themselves equally American and citizens of the world. Many opposing progressives are veterans proud of military service. Most are flag-waving patriots, nationalists and believers in American exceptionalism. Many own guns and willingly defend their families and their Constitutional freedoms. Most don’t believe that achieving political ends can ever justify a wrong.

The outcome of this new civil war is in doubt. If the left prevails, America will become a social welfare democracy, following the pattern of failing European states. If traditionalists prevail, America may return to the constitutional principles which it made it the most prosperous and free nation in history. The current balance of power favors the progressive left. But, history and an understanding of economics favors the traditionalists. The rising Tea Party movement suggests the balance of power may be shifting.

William Dixon is a graduate of Columbia University, New York Medical College and the USF College of Business Administration. He was an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Georgia before entering private practice. He served 11 years in the Army as a surgeon and as a Special Forces Officer, achieving the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Dr. Dixon can be reached at Wdixon16@yahoo.com.

There is no middle ground when someone has a loaded gun at your head.

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?

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.