God help us :)
BRING IT ON!
We’re now one step closer to America’s coming civil war
By Arthur Herman
Published January 03, 2013
| FoxNews.com
The New Year has started with a monstrosity of a budget deal, one that proves that neither political party, Democrats or Republicans, is really serious about controlling the growth of big government.
But soap opera dramatics about fiscal “cliffs” and sequestration shouldn’t deflect from where President Obama is really taking this country. Consider this story from the Wall Street Journal a few days before Christmas:
“Thousands of people in several Argentine cities ransacked supermarkets for a second day in the latest challenge to President Chistina Kirchner, who is struggling to revive a weak economy...In the central city Rosario, two people were killed during the incidents and 137 people arrested.
“The violence puts Mrs. Kirchner in a difficult position as the poor are [her] core constituents...Her government spends billions of dollars a year to help low income families, including free health care...[Yet] Argentine activists who claim to represent the poor traditionally block access to supermarkets in the month of December to demand free food and other items...The latest events were some of the worst acts of looting and vandalism in years.... Local media showed dozens of men, women, and children hauling away televisions, refrigerators, and food.”
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/03/were-now-one-step-closer-to-america-coming-civil-war/
Both of them were muslim, IIRC.
Carlo, I agree, there is little else that I can think of that could so effectively have polarized the nation even MORE than is already is than this latest Obama move.
But what ardent supporters are you talking about that have conceded that Barky has lurched too far left with this? The few I actually know are pretty firmly behind him on this.
“There is NO safe place for you, me, our loved ones, our friends, nor the tyrant wannabes. We are all vulnerable to anyone with a scope. “
This is the problem. I know many well armed Southern Democrats who sing the praises of that man in office, some of them, I am reasonably sure, would use those arms to defend liberty, regardless of their otherwise unqualified support. Others, I am also sure, will use them against those who are against the “man who has saved this country” (I kid you not).
I have also met my share of former military hippies, deadheads and rainbow people who have stated they would use their training to do what was necessary to defend their own, and their own understanding of liberty (which may be radically different from ours).
Not all the guns are on “our” side - even here, we see that “our” side has many fracture points when it comes to defining what rights trump others, and I would not be surprised to find fellow freepers, perhaps unbeknownst to one another or not, on opposite ends of a field of fire.
Popular novels such as “Unintended Consequences” champion the idea that conservatives have the upper hand in the weapons category, and that sniping all our leaders will fix the problem.
Morally, this seems to me more akin to the guillotines of the French Revolution than the generally considered Just War of the American one. [Aside, check out “The French and American Revolutions Compared” by Friedrich Gentz, a relatively short treatise now available in e-format on line, complete with translator John Quincy Adams’ introduction]. Furthermore, it violates the idea that the lawful resistor must have some legitimate authority of its own - eg the “lesser magistrate” acting to defend the people from the abuses of those above him. Even the French used the guillotine under color of authority. A million people acting as a law unto themselves, judge jury and executioner in one, would be greater lawlessness than we have now.
Once that genie is out of the bottle there may be no putting it back.
(Windflier, post32: Please tell me what army Obama has up his sleeve that can conquer a force like that?)
We may be making a mistake in assuming that “conquering” or “winning” is the goal of the people in charge of this administration. Remember, it has been reported that Ayers, et al, once schemed ways of taking out 10% of the population. Looking at numerous reports of how the Dems “focus group” and psychoanalyze using even the nuances of various words to influence public perceptions on issues, one might wonder about the long running propaganda campaign to divide us into so many splinters against one another.
If we were to be invaded by a foreign enemy, there would be many cases of “Jamal” and “Bubba” getting each other’s backs. Even if our own government overreached its position carelessly, they would do the same. But we could easily destroy ourselves in the millions, and/or be rendered ineffectual on the world stage, if we do not proceed very carefully from this point.
I pray regularly for the repentance of That Man in office, and his protection. The big Lincoln fad right now has me particularly worried, to be honest. First, it has been decided to put him in the public consciousness with several movies, specials and books. Then we have this foolish (on many fronts) notion of making comparisons between the two. To many it seems evident that the current president was put in office for the purpose of the destabilization of our country and the world. Nothing would enhance that goal more than seeing all the so called parallels between the two carried out in extremis. If we survived the immediate aftermath, we would have a hard and bitter Second Reconstruction, and it would be extremely difficult for the message of conservatism to be divorced from the purposeful conflation with racism and extremism that would surely ensue.
The founders were very careful to list their grievances out of “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.” We need to do the same, or we will have only chaos and death for an untold and indeterminable time.
A just conflict, with clearly spelled out, even shall we say “self-evident,” reasons and goals, could have a hope of being also a limited one. If we cannot have a reasonable hope of success in winning the conflict and limiting its scope, we only create more evil than that we seek to ameliorate.