Will America Break Up?

[Ryan Ruck]

This is no good,bad sign.

The Flag is the symbol of the country(whatever Country),it cant offend who lives in there.

You are exactly, 1000% right Peterle. We are a nation that is losing its national identity.

Maybe i have to tell a little story:

In 2004 there was the World Soccer Champioship going on so i decided to put an Italian flag
in front of my house.

Know what?Next day it misteriously disappered!!!!(It was INSIDE my property.)

I didnt give up so next day i decided to put it over the top of a dismessed pilon:

After this the "Muslim chief" of my village told me to take it away!
I anwered:"Try to take it away by yourself!"

He went to the local authority too.They said him :"We are in Italy and an Italian flag can be there!"

The Italian flag disrupt them...It is visible from very far

COME ON GUYS.PUT AMERICAN FLAGS EVERYWHERE!!!!!

After this episode every 4 year i climb the pilon and change the flag with a new one!!!

Nice!

By the way, some of us fly more than just the American flag too...

[Ryan Ruck]

12% See Secession Attempt as Very Likely in Next 25 Years Or So

June 22, 2010

As far as most Americans are concerned, the United States isn’t going away any time soon.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 28% of Adults believe it is at least somewhat likely that some states will try to leave the United States and form an independent country over the next 25 years or so. Sixty-four percent (64%) say a secession attempt is unlikely.

These figures include 12% who say it is Very Likely and 22% who say it is Not At All Likely.

Eighteen percent (18%) of Americans believe that individual states have the right to leave the United States and form an independent country. Sixty-three percent (63%) say states do not have that right and 19% are not sure. Those figures are little changed since February.

Twenty-three percent (23%) of all Americans think it’s at least somewhat likely that the United States will split up into regional groups of states over the next quarter-century or so. Only nine percent (9%) say it is Very Likely.

Despite all the Tea Party unhappiness in the country and the increasing partisanship in this midterm election year, only 10% of adults say it would be good for the United States to split up into regional groups of states. Seventy percent (70%) say that would be bad for the country. But, interestingly, another 20% aren’t sure.

Just 21% of voters nationwide believe the government today has the consent of the governed.

(Want a free daily e-mail update ? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

This nationwide survey of 1,000 Adults was conducted on June 18-19, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Among Republicans, however, 40% see a likelihood that some states will leave, compared to 15% of Democrats and 31% of adults not affiliated with either party. Nearly one-out-of-five Republicans (18%) say a breakup of the country is Very Likely.

Constitutional scholars still debate whether states have the right to secede from the United States under the U.S. Constitution. The most prominent example, of course, is the Civil War in which President Lincoln used military force to prevent the Southern states from seceding from the union

A year ago, 11% said they would vote for their state to secede from the United States, while 83% said they would vote for their state to stay in the union.

Eighteen percent (18%) of Texas voters would opt to leave, but 75% would vote to remain part of the United States.

Nationally, 22% of Republicans and 23% of adults not affiliated with either major party believe that states have the right to leave the United States. Only nine percent (9%) of Democrats agree.

But voters nationwide strongly believe that a state should have the right to opt out of federal programs it doesn’t like.

Seventy percent (70%) or more of voters have been angry about the policies of the federal government for months now, but most also feel that neither Democratic nor Republican leaders have a good understanding of what is needed today.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all adults nationwide say most politicians want to grow the government with more power and money. By comparison, 58% say most voters want the government to have less power and money.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters nationwide believe the United States is the last best hope of mankind. Twenty-six percent (26%) disagree, and 24% are not sure.

But only 40% say America's best days are in the future. Slightly more (45%) feel the country's best days are behind us.

Thirty-two percent (32%) believe the United States will still be the most powerful nation in the world at the end of the 21^st Century. Forty-five percent (45%) disagree.

Some very interesting numbers despite Rasmussen downplaying the numbers. Almost 1/3 of people believe secession is a possibility!

[American Patriot]

I agree that secession is a possibility, but I don't think that it is right. The States are States only because they are the States UNITED....When they try to leave the Union, they legally cease to be because seceeding entities cannot guarantee the fundemental bedrock of our people-that is to remain under a republican form of goverment-which only Union can do.

Negative, Ghostrider, negative. The states are NOT states only because they are united. The states were STATES before the Federal Government was the Federal Government and the STATES FORMED the Federal Government.

States do NOT legally cease to exist because they secede but rather no longer fall under the Federal Government (and can be treated as hostile by the other States, which I find not only inconceivable given the circumstances, I also find it nearly impossible). The Feds would take it very, very badly and try to do something damned dangerous simply because they want to keep the states together.... which is a good thing, but doing something damned dangerous would be ignorant and stupid.

Will a state secede? I doubt it when it comes right down to it, UNLESS the Federal Government, and specifically the Office of the President becomes untenable.

Also, I would agree that America CANNOT be the 'last and best hope of Mankind', because Jesus Christ is the FIRST, LAST, AND ONLY, HOPE OF MANKIND. Those who think otherwise are deluding themselves into thinking that America can save Humanity in the only meaningful way. America is a nation among nations and will someday go the way of all nations in history. She is blest only to the degree she is in conformity with Reality....

I will not argue religion in a political forum, but will state emphatically that America IS the LAST, BEST HOPE of Mankind.

Jesus Christ isn't here. He isn't going to fight a war for us. He is a faith-based belief. America is real, here and now. Americans and our beliefs, morals and Constitution are the ONLY thing standing between Ameican citizens and the barbarian hordes of the Far East, China, North Korean, Mongols, Islamic fruitcakes and commies.

You feel free to pray for everyone around you, and even me and yourself, but stay the fuck out of my sights when the shooting starts, Padre.

[American Patriot]

Funny. Where do I start?

I'm not a 'Padre'.

Was a word play on your picture

Jesus Christ is here, but I'm not going to argue that here with you. And i'm not going to argue about the virtues of defending Civilization from the Barbarians within and without...For God's sake, i'm in agreement with you there-i'd be shooting at them too.

Nor am I. As I stated, I don't usually argue religion at all, and never do so in politics.

I'll simply point out that the only religion that includes politics in religious teachings is Islam. And leave it at that.

What I disagree with you is the issue of whether a state ceases to exist after it secedes from the Union, and I would cite the example of what happened when the state of West Virginia came into being, said state having been created when the old state of Virginia seceded-and that a new state 'Virginia' came into being when it's Senators and Congressmen were seated after the Civil War.

You certainly have the right to be wrong. You'd be wrong. A state is a state, regardless of the notion of being connected with, or a part of the United States.

You see, each state has it's own Constitution. Each state was ALREADY a State BEFORE the United States became the United States (I cite the fact that they are all states beforehand and became United).

You make my case for me. Each state was a state. When the people of Virgina, divided by the war found it necessary, they seceeded from the state itself (forming yet another state, which became part of the United States, leaving Virgina as a state alone).

By leaving the United States (secession) simply means they no longer hold the US Constitution as the highest law of their land. The state Constitution becomes the highest state.

This is not a new idea, having been expressed by Charles Sumner of Massachusetts during the Reconstruction period and in a somewhat milder form by Orestes Brownson. The states came in being before the Constitution (but were united before then too!), but cannot remain so if they leave the Constitution because THEY IN THEMSELVES cannot guarantee an republican STATE Constitution(s). This is the 'Achilles heel' of all Secession arguements, that secession or it's threat would somehow preserve republican goverment....

While the states were "united" they were not "The United States". Each was a state onto itself and had no reason to follow the rules of the other states.

The fact that a state can have it's own laws should tell you something here.

I have stated before that our common enemies would love to break up our Union and destroy this country...And thus they would love to revive neo-confederate feeling among some on the Right, stoking the fires of treason and sedition there as well as on the Left in a perfect dialectical trap. Secession could happen and given history might even be likely, as well as a more anarchic general rebellion or Race war. America is not immune from the laws of History and is not likely to survive 1000 years or even another 200 years. This is fact and not sentiment talking.

I most wholeheartly agree with you, and I don't believe the US will "break up" anyway. I argue the point that should a state chose to do so, the only way to make it remain would be by the force of arms of the United States Federal Government - with which many other states MIGHT DISAGREE to the use of such power!

I find it funny you said "neo-confederate among the Right"... when the real confederates were on the LEFT, the Democrats.

A Race War is vastly more likely than a state breaking off. Although I can see Arizona, Texas and even to an extent (not as great) Arizona doing so.

No one says we're immune, but we are certainly much less likely than any other second or third world country. Americans are, on the whole, a lot smarter, and more pragmatic than the rest of the world, and even our idiots on the left make us sound.

[American Patriot]

Well I won't belabor the points at which we disagree, except that in modern times the neo-confederates can be found on the 'Right', largely as a result of Nixon's 'Southern strategy' of luring white dixiecrat racists into the GOP.

No. They are not. Simply put no one wants the country to break up. Regardless of the idealism you cite. They aren't "confederates" anyone. A Confederate is someone who believes in a group of states taking part in sessesion and follows such rules as that.

Those who think it is something to be considered do so only out of pure frustration, and I think we all know this.

And as to the union/secession issue, perhaps I share with others a more metaphysical concept of America as a nation, which is somewhat at odds with my knowledge of history and Augustinian outlook on life in general. America will go the way of Rome, Persia, Egypt, etc...But it's important to me to hold that decline off a bit to save what can still be saved (and worth saving) for future generations.

There is nothing whatsoever "metaphysical" about the aspect of this country.

We are what we are. What we are NOT is some vague notion of existence. This country exists solely because of people like me, you and the founding fathers who feel strongly that individual liberties trump those of either states rights or federal rights.

To believe anything differently is shameful. Many of our elected leaders don't get this yet.

But "While a goverment's rule based on opinion and imagination is mild and acceptable and may last for some time, might and force last for ever..." Perhaps the 'Great Experiment' our founders promulgated is over.

The "Great Experiment" isn't any longer an experiement. It hasn't been for more than 200 years since we created and ratified the Constitution.

[American Patriot]

I do not think that the sentiment of secession is confined to frustration, Rick. There are many who would love an opportunity to 'have a go at it' (or rather; 'git er done ) and restore an 'old South' that never really existed in the first place.

You know what really bugs me about statements like this? And indeed several you've made here... they are stereotypes.

Larry the Cable Guy is NOT what most Americans are like. He is a stereotype. In fact there are a few types like him. But, you know I come from the Midwest originally. I was born in Detroit, but at heart I'm a Kentuckian. I'm a Daniel Boone in modern times. I can track animals, feed the family with a gun, or a bow and arrow or even a knife or throw stick alone. But I can also use technology, gps, cell phones, computers, amateur radio and direct an air strike.

I can lead a contingent of men to take an objective, change diapers and I'll challenge any many to do those things as well as myself - and when the time comes, I will fly a star ship if necessary.

The point is that people are individuals and the old Leftists remarks about "Joe Sixpack" simply do not hold true in this day and age.

Yes, there IS a certain "The South Shall Rise Again" mentality - but in truth it is a private joke amongst the southern boys I know. They believe that the South was ruined by Northern Carpetbaggers (not unlike Hillary Clinton would be considered today).

But, to me it is insulting to insinuate that there is a group of people who would love nothing better than to see America fall so the South could rise again.

No... the people that want to see America fall yell "Allah Ackbar" or "Rot v adu" (Russian for rot in hell... something I find hilarious since the Commies didn't believe in God to begin with) and North Korea, China and even Venezuala. THOSE people are a bigger threat to America than our own people.

And you say that the experiment is no longer an experiment, having been in place for over 200 years. Yes, but look where we are at now...We have certain ideas as Americans that we generally share in common, but when it comes to fighting for it any longer? I'm saying that perhaps 'Might' (the ability to impose one's ideas/theories on the world around you by force-which is the ultimate reality in the World) will trump 'Opinion and Imagination' (the ability to persuade others to accept one's ideas/theories in the world, regardless of their reality) anytime.

In Latin the phrase "Vae Victis" comes to mind. It means merely "Woe unto the vanquished". To those in ancient times who fought wars it was normal to take the women as prisoners and murder the men and boy children. This was the way of the world for a long, long time.

America doesn't do that. We simply do NOT. America doesn't believe in "Might makes Right".

Unless you look at it from this point of view... we know what is right and wrong and when we, or someone else is wronged, we should help to make it right.

Our MIGHT can enforce that atmosphere in the world, and indeed does. It doesn't stop the little guys, the petty terrorists. They die in their own time and way, and sometimes take good people with them.

What I believe you're trying to say here is that perhaps Might WILL make Right?

Even so, remember this. America is a country made up of many people and there are at least twice as many opinions are there are American individuals.

Take for example 9-11. Americans, both sides of the political spectrum, came together, pulled together and decided in one, loud voice that we wanted revenge, and we should go after and STOP those who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

America WILL do what is right, in SPITE of President Obama or any other person who takes that office and is arrogant enough to believe himself "in charge".

Certainly a President's position is to be "in charge", to be a leader, but also, most important the President must absolutely enforce the rules of the Constitution. And each and every person appointed by him and under him MUST DO THE SAME.

Without this simple rule, we have chaos. This is what took our Caesar. He made himself Dictator. He died for his affront to the Senate and the People of Rome, all Roman Citizens and ALL part of a larger Republic, just as we are.

President Obama wouldn't dare do such a thing. Of course the Senators wouldn't murder him but he certainly will be removed from the Office were he to do something like that.

It bothers me that people still use stereotypes to discount arguments, and facts.

[vector7]

Friday, July 9, 2010
So Much for Being a Sovereign Nation

National Sovereignty piece by Guest: Armand C. Hale

The sad state of affairs for the U.S. is now evident in our courts. This current administration has shown time and again its total disregard for the average American citizen’s wishes. This administration has no focus, no backbone, and no leadership.

I found this in an article, on Fox News:

…but as part of the complaint, the Obama administration warns the Arizona law could damage ties with Mexico and other countries and has already had foreign policy implications for U.S. diplomatic relations. The suit cites Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s May address to Congress where he blasted the Arizona immigration law and a travel alert Mexico’s Foreign Ministry issued in late April for Mexicans visiting Arizona. The Mexican government also played a role in getting the Department of Education to move a conference out of Arizona. S.B. 1070 has subjected the United States to direct criticism by other countries and international organizations and has resulted in a breakdown in certain planned bilateral and multilateral arrangements on issues such as border security and disaster management, the suit claims. S.B. 1070 has in these ways undermined several aspects of U.S. foreign policy related to immigration issues and other national concerns that are unrelated to immigration.

The case in point is the Attorney General’s lawsuit against Arizona’s Immigration Law. Since when does the Federal Government involve itself in a states’ right to protect its citizens in the absence of the government’s enforcement of federal law? In a time when decisive leadership is needed to secure our borders, the decision by committee decided to sue one of its own states. In essence, instead of protecting its citizens, this administration has taken the path to protect the criminal and give them a free pass. This is an outrage and insult to every immigrant who complied with our laws and legally became a U.S. Citizen.

Let us not use the words of racism and profiling; it’s a direct violation of our laws when someone decided to come here and set up residence by just walking across our borders. The only avenue this administration can see is the potential of more voters to keep them in power. In addition, the federal court has entertained the acceptance of the briefs filed by a foreign nation against the Arizona law. This impinges the sovereignty of this nation; impinges the sovereignty of one of our states and yet…this administration does nothing but file a lawsuit.

The people of Arizona have made the decision to protect themselves against those who would commit a crime against our laws and commit crimes against the people of Arizona. Already, the sheriff of one county is receiving death threats for supporting this law; cartels have set up bases on our lands to monitor law enforcement moves; parts of a national forest is off limits to our own citizens because of the danger presented by the cartels, human smugglers and the illegal’s coming thru there. And what has this administration done… NOTHING!

Gov. Jan Brewer, stand fast for your constituents and the law. It is clear this administration would rather use the lawyers’ path of litigation to try and wear you down. You will get no leadership from this administration in your fight to uphold which this administration is failing to do. You should as governor activate your states’ National Guard and literally drive out the invaders. The definition of invaders is: entering a country by military force.

To enter a country by force with or as an army, especially in order to conquer it. Other states will follow with this vacuum of national focus.

Is this what the U.S. has to look forward to? Is it the complete erosion of our national sovereignty in favor of a world government? Can we continue to afford these types of absurd committee decisions leading us into a state of total government control? Is this the hope and change promised? If it is…keep it! The only change we need is at the top and to clean out those others who will trample on the average citizen, voting to make things right in favor of the politically advantageous to keep themselves in power. But act fast before the rest of the farm is given up in favor of the new world order.

Armand C. Hale

[American Patriot]

Again, this isn't about you. I have lived in the South all my life, and I consider it my home and my culture. I know for a fact however that many white people among whom I have lived would love a chance to reverse the way of things past and have a 'free and independent South'. This is fact, not theory. It has to do with 'Race' and nothing anyone can say will change that-it is our country's 'original sin', if you will. We will eventually break apart unless force holds us together.

Our 'Caesar'....What to say? You and I may well be 90% in agreement politically (and I think we are) but if we don't have the 'Might' to keep our country free in accordance with our common ideals, we might as well live what lives we can under the new order. This is not a call to surrender, but rather to remind you that perhaps the majority of our fellow citizens are no longer suited to living in a free society...Look around you and maybe you will begrudgingly agree. Perhaps then 'Caesar' will become necessary to preserve civilization.

And then failing to make the just powerful, perhaps we will make the powerful just, so that justice and power agree, and civil war is avoided, which is the worst of evils.

I've thought long and hard on this.

Yes, I will agree that many somehow don't "wish to be free" any more. Except for one, vital problem. *I* DO.

I am NOT willing to surrender, I am not willing to give the Left what it wants - a tacit acceptance that they have won. As long as I live and breathe, as long as I can still swing a club or shoot a weapon, America BELONGS TO ME.

America does NOT belong to those who say they want Socialism or Marxism. They can point their finger at me all they want and say "What do you mean YOUR country, it's my country too!"

Well, no, I beg to differ. In fact, wait, I don't BEG, I DO DIFFER.

America belongs to the Free. America belongs to Capitalism. America belongs to those of us who have fought for it, and for those freedoms we DO enjoy and by GOD I will NOT surrender my country to these people.

I guess I see too many people, from the friends I mentioned in the Socialism thread, to even you guys here on this site quietly giving in, giving up and wanting it to "just all go away" without a fight.

No, my friends....

NOW is the time to fight back. Before the bullets fly, before it does become a civil war, before those who are neighbors but are politically on the other side of the fence arm themselves to take away what we have.

I'm sick of people giving up.

Shit or get off the pot people.

[American Patriot]

Michael, no offense to religion in this case, but honestly, people who think Jesus will save them from some thing here on Earth have been disappointed over and over.

If He comes at all, it will not be to save individuals from some notion that the world is ending and evil is here.

IF HE comes at all...

I don't believe any supreme being has any interest at ALL in saving our asses from our own problems, the same problems we created.

Nope. Not going to happen.

[American Patriot]

Exactly!

[Backstop]

I was reading Rick's response to Michael, and I thought of the Jesus and boat joke.

Once again, I was beat to the draw (by Peterle).

HAHA!

So I'll add my other favorite thought regarding that.

God/Jesus/The Flying Spaghetti Monster wants us to grow and thrive here.

He doesn't want us to be enslaved, oppressed, under duress, etc.

But he also expects us to stand the hell up, and work at it.

And fight if necessary.

Short version: God helps those that help themselves.

[vector7]

Companion Thread: Russian analyst predicts decline and breakup of U.S.

The CW2 Cube -- Mapping the Meta-Terrain Of Civil War Two

by Matthew Bracken

From Matthew Bracken, author of Enemies Foreign And Domestic, Domestic Enemies - The Reconquista, and Foreign Enemies And Traitors:

A second civil war in the United States would be an unparalleled disaster. Nobody who is sane and who has studied modern civil wars from Spain to Lebanon to the Balkans and beyond would ever wish to see one occur. But if political, cultural and demographic trends are sweeping us toward that unhappy destiny, it would be wise to at least cast a weather eye over the possible terrain.

First, a caveat. I am not going to waste our time making politically-correct genuflections after every controversial sentence, because this essay is intended to be read by mature and rational adults.

Before we move on to the cube, let’s begin with the CW2 Square. The cube is best tackled in another step. Draw the square and label one axis Poorer to Richer. Label the other axis Darker to Lighter. Darker, for brevity, includes African-Americans, Hispanics and so on. Lighter refers to those of European ancestry. The two opposed meta-groups are the poorer and darker versus the richer and lighter, or whiter if you wish to be blunt. The richer/whiter have the power of their wealth, but counterbalancing that advantage is the fact that the poorer/darker have succeeded in wresting control of much of government power. This is so, even if most of their elected leaders are anything but poor or dark.

Now, before you scream out your exceptions, yes, there are rich black cattle ranchers and poor whites living in blighted urban areas and so on. However, to focus on them is to miss the critical centers of gravity of Civil War Two for the over-study of interesting but insignificant outliers. Filling one corner of the CW2 Square will be the poorer and darker, who primarily are liberal and progressive Democrats who believe in a malleable “living Constitution.” And in the other corner will be the richer and whiter, who mainly are conservative or libertarian Republicans who believe in the original intent of the written Constitution. Again, keep your eyes on the two meta-cores, not the exceptions.

Now, let’s add the third dimension and shoot another axis out from the square to form the CW2 Cube. Label the third axis Urban versus Rural, or City versus Country if you prefer. This axis gives a geographical dimension to the meta-terrain, but there will be no convenient dividing line between the opposed sides as there was during the first civil war. It has frequently been observed that today’s red-blue political map is better understood at the county than at the state level. Even blue states like Illinois, California and New York are rural-red outside of their blue urban cores. Obviously, these urban cores are heavily populated but geographically small, with all that means to the electoral process today and to a possible civil war later.

So the opposing corners of the CW2 Cube can be seen as the poorer, darker cities versus the richer, whiter rural areas. Again, don’t quibble about outliers. Yes, there are a few rich, conservative African-Americans living in Wyoming, many poor white liberal Democrats in rural West Virginia, some rich conservatives in San Francisco and every other exceptional case imaginable.

Most of us live in the mushy, mongrel middle, far from the tips of the two opposite corners. But the centers of gravity of Civil War Two shall be as I have described: the relatively richer, whiter and more rural against the poorer, darker and urban.

One can also propose many more axes of conflict than can fit on a cube, such as the religious versus the non-believers, socialists versus capitalists, statists versus individualists and so on. However, after you reflect upon the CW2 Cube, I think you will find that most of these extra axes can be overlaid parallel to one of the three already posited.

*******

So, of what use is the CW2 Cube, other than in providing a conceptual map for Civil War Two? In my research as a novelist who attempts to write realistic fiction about the coming years, I have long been a student of modern civil wars. One repeated lesson of modern civil war is that there is inherently dangerous, even fatal terrain. Some of this predictably-dangerous terrain is often highly desirable and even advantageous before the outbreak of civil war.

To begin: you do not want to live as a trapped and cut-off minority in what might become “enemy territory.” If you live amidst your civil war enemies, as defined and located within the CW2 Cube, you will be in mortal danger even if your immediate neighbors know, love and respect you. Those persons who have a stake in fanning the flames of CW2 (and their number shall be legion), will intentionally target those remaining “holdouts” who may be respected minority neighbors. (In this essay, minority means “the minority within a given group or area.” Blacks are the majority in some areas, and whites are the minorities in others, and so on.)

Frequently in modern civil wars, roaming armed groups (in or out of uniform) will even force people to kill their own beloved and respected minority neighbors as an ultimate loyalty test. If they refuse, they may themselves be killed as “traitors.” Besides pre-conflict racists and radicals, there will be an ever-increasing pool of persons attempting to expel minorities from their homes. Those embittered unfortunates who have already been ethnically cleansed will be seeking new living quarters, and the homes and property of “enemy” minorities still living in majority territory will be the first on the chopping block. (Not the auction block, because payment of any kind is rarely offered.) This process of minority eviction becomes self-perpetuating.

Often, those members of minorities who escape as refugees are the lucky ones who do not lose their lives during the back-and-forth of escalating violence. The fact that they may have been loved, admired and respected for many years by their majority-population neighbors will not protect them. This is a clear lesson of modern civil war. Another is that while the rich or the well-to-do can sometimes hide their wealth and pass as proles, the same cannot be said about concealing one’s racial or ethnic identity. Religious affiliation and political leanings can also be hidden, but outward appearance cannot. Civil War Two may begin on purely political grounds, but it will devolve into something worse.

Does this mean that all white city-dwellers should head for the hinterland, or that dark-skinned folks living in the country should move to the city? It’s not for me to say. We all hope and pray that there will never be a second “hot civil war” in America, instead of merely the “cold civil war” we are engaged in today. But the lessons of modern civil wars should not be ignored. Another lesson is that it will take tremendous moral courage to defy the hot-heads and radicals, and shield your minority neighbors from harm. Think of Anne Frank. Think of those indescribably brave inhabitants of the former Yugoslavia who hid their minority neighbors, when the discovery of that fact could and often did lead to their own deaths.

*******

While Civil War Two is on the table for discussion, allow me to introduce two aggravating factors that don’t fit neatly on the cube. The first is the concept of multiple embedded minorities. Picture the old cartoon mainstay showing a line of fish getting ready to gobble another fish, from the leviathan down to the small fry. You might live in a neighborhood where you are in the majority, but the neighborhood is in a town where you are in the minority. And the town is surrounded by a larger area where your own kind once again predominates.

Or you might fit into the picture as the smallest of all fish, living in the only minority household within a majority neighborhood. From street to neighborhood to city to state to region can easily place you in the middle of several levels of embedded minorities-within-majorities. This formulation might work for many decades during times of relative prosperity and well-being, but during a civil war it is a recipe for disaster, as unstable as nitroglycerin-filled bowling pins. It’s all cool just as long as the pins are standing still and calmly hanging out together, but look out when the Black Swan bowling ball comes rolling in! An unstoppable chain reaction ensues, as each new act of violence is avenged up and down the line.

Remember that funny line-of-fish cartoon, and imagine it a few seconds later when the biting begins. It’s not so funny then -- especially for the smaller fish.

The second aggravating factor is the unstable triangle of the three-sided civil war. The Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Muslims provide a classic example. Each side of the unstable triangle will backstab yesterday’s ally at the moment they perceive themselves to be at a local disadvantage, or when they see an opportunity to wipe out an historic enemy with a new Final Solution. The unstable ethnic triangle in the United States will in many places be composed of black, white and Hispanic sides. By comparison, the old black and white social dichotomy was inherently stable, even when it might have been rife with injustice.

In some areas, Asians, Middle-easterners, Native Americans and other groups will contribute to the formation of regional social geometries that are even more unstable than the unstable triangle. Study modern civil wars and you will cringe at the implications. A steel roller-coaster overloaded with old dynamite and electric blasting caps during a lightning storm comes to my mind.

And finally, some urban settings are just disastrous during a modern civil war, even if they might offer a terrific quality of life during peacetime. Perhaps the top the list of danger areas are high-rise buildings located near potential civil war flashpoints or fault lines. Living in a cluster of high-rises divided by a “green line” during a guerrilla sniper war is a worst-case horror show. Not to mention the misery attendant to life in a tall building without running water, electricity, sewage service, working elevators, heating or air-conditioning. While under intermittent sniper fire. For months.

So should you stay or should you go? If you don’t believe that another civil war in America is possible, then simply disregard this column. But if you think that a second civil war could happen then picture the CW2 Cube and map your location within it. If you think that you live near a possible civil war fault line, especially as a local minority, consider relocating.

After the fact, a common sentiment heard from urbane, secular Bosnians living in the Olympic City of Sarajevo expressed complete disbelief that a brutal, bloody civil war could have come to their modern European city and tear their lives apart.

But it did.

A parting suggestion to students of modern civil war is to read “Seasons in Hell: Understanding Bosnia’s War” by the British journalist Ed Vulliamy. It’s currently collecting dust at your local public library, waiting only to be read.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Matthew Bracken is the author of the “Enemies” trilogy, beginning with 2003's “Enemies Foreign And Domestic”.

For more information, go to http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/

See also Misha Glenny's The Third Balkan War for his account of what happens when a society commits autogenocide.

[vector7]

Will Washington's Failures Lead To Second American Revolution?

By ERNEST S. CHRISTIAN AND GARY A ROBBINS
Posted 07/30/2010 06:30 PM ET

The Internet is a large-scale version of the "Committees of Correspondence" that led to the first American Revolution — and with Washington's failings now so obvious and awful, it may lead to another.

People are asking, "Is the government doing us more harm than good? Should we change what it does and the way it does it?"

Pruning the power of government begins with the imperial presidency.

Too many overreaching laws give the president too much discretion to make too many open-ended rules controlling too many aspects of our lives. There's no end to the harm an out-of-control president can do.

Bill Clinton lowered the culture, moral tone and strength of the nation — and left America vulnerable to attack. When it came, George W. Bush stood up for America, albeit sometimes clumsily.

Barack Obama, however, has pulled off the ultimate switcheroo: He's diminishing America from within — so far, successfully.

He may soon bankrupt us and replace our big merit-based capitalist economy with a small government-directed one of his own design.

He is undermining our constitutional traditions: The rule of law and our Anglo-Saxon concepts of private property hang in the balance. Obama may be the most "consequential" president ever.

The Wall Street Journal's steadfast Dorothy Rabinowitz wrote that Barack Obama is "an alien in the White House."

His bullying and offenses against the economy and job creation are so outrageous that CEOs in the Business Roundtable finally mustered the courage to call him "anti-business." Veteran Democrat Sen. Max Baucus blurted out that Obama is engineering the biggest government-forced "redistribution of income" in history.

Fear and uncertainty stalk the land. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says America's financial future is "unusually uncertain."

A Wall Street "fear gauge" based on predicted market volatility is flashing long-term panic. New data on the federal budget confirm that record-setting deficits in the $1.4 trillion range are now endemic.

Obama is building an imperium of public debt and crushing taxes, contrary to George Washington's wise farewell admonition: "cherish public credit ... use it as sparingly as possible ... avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not ... inconvenient and unpleasant ... ."

Opinion polls suggest that in the November mid-term elections, voters will replace the present Democratic majority in Congress with opposition Republicans — but that will not necessarily stop Obama.

A President Obama intent on achieving his transformative goals despite the disagreement of the American people has powerful weapons within reach. In one hand, he will have a veto pen to stop a new Republican Congress from repealing ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank takeover of banks.

In the other, he will have a fistful of executive orders, regulations and Obama-made fiats that have the force of law.

Under ObamaCare, he can issue new rules and regulations so insidiously powerful in their effect that higher-priced, lower-quality and rationed health care will quickly become ingrained, leaving a permanent stain.

Under Dodd-Frank, he and his agents will control all credit and financial transactions, rewarding friends and punishing opponents, discriminating on the basis of race, gender and political affiliation. Credit and liquidity may be choked by bureaucracy and politics — and the economy will suffer.

He and the EPA may try to impose by "regulatory" fiats many parts of the cap-and-trade and other climate legislation that failed in the Congress.

And by executive orders and the in terrorem effect of an industrywide "boot on the neck" policy, he can continue to diminish energy production in the United States.

By the trick of letting current-law tax rates "expire," he can impose a $3.5 trillion 10-year tax increase that damages job-creating capital investment in an economy struggling to recover. And by failing to enforce the law and leaving America's borders open, he can continue to repopulate America with unfortunate illegals whose skill and education levels are low and whose political attitudes are often not congenial to American-style democracy.

A wounded rampaging president can do much damage — and, like Caesar, the evil he does will live long after he leaves office, whenever that may be.

The overgrown, un-pruned power of the presidency to reward, punish and intimidate may now be so overwhelming that his re-election in 2012 is already assured — Chicago-style.

• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration.

• Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.

[vector7]

The distrust and disdain Americans of all political persuasions feel toward the White House and Congress is extraordinary

The People Versus the Government

By Alan Caruba Saturday, July 31, 2010



These are truly extraordinary times. With every passing day, we are witnessing what can only be called the People versus the Government. The distrust and disdain Americans of all political persuasions feel toward the White House and Congress is extraordinary.

A June Gallup Poll revealed that just 12% of Americans expressed confidence in Congress, “the lowest of the 16 institutions tested this year, and the worst Gallup has measured for any institution in the 35-year history of the question.” A recent Rasmussen Reports survey found that 68% believe the nation’s Political Class doesn’t “care what most Americans think.”

The so-called Stimulus Act was widely seen as a “porkulous” act; over two thousand pages filled with Congressional pork projects passed off as “shovel ready.” It promised to reduce unemployed which since has risen—-officially—-from 8.5% to just under 10%.

There was widespread opposition to the government takeover of General Motors and Chrysler as opposed to an orderly process of bankruptcy that would have permitted changes to restore both companies. The arbitrary White House intervention left bond holders and investors in the cold. It was clearly a bailout for the United Auto Union. This was then followed by the astonishingly stupid “Cash for Clunkers” legislation and the closing of selected auto agencies, some of which were sales leaders.

The overwhelming majority of Americans did not want the healthcare reform act to be passed and now want it repealed. Much has already been written about how it will raise costs and decrease services while driving many physicians to abandon Medicare because of its low payment schedule.

Then came the financial reform act, another huge bill whose contents are still being analyzed, but which significantly avoided any reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government “entities” that were responsible for the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Both agencies have been seized by the government, but both still own over fifty percent of all U.S. mortgages.

At what point will there any “private” enterprise left in America?

Healthcare, financial services, auto manufacturers; at what point will there any “private” enterprise left in America that is not totally controlled by the government?

What surprises me most is the lack of protest marches in Washington, D.C.

The September 2009 rally drew close to a million utterly peaceful people who were opposed to Obamacare. The Tea Party movement has been staging events that have drawn large crowds.

I suspect it has much to do with a patient electorate counting down the days until the November 2nd elections. They are more critical to the future of the nation than any since the election of Abraham Lincoln just prior to the Civil War when southern States were calling for secession.

We are witnessing an increasing friction between the States and the federal government and there is no telling how that will manifest itself in the years to come. The decision by a federal judge regarding Arizona’s effort to force the federal government to do more regarding the wholesale invasion of America promises to be a major issue in both the midterm and 2012 elections.

For me, the most interesting aspect of the dissatisfaction with President Obama is that occurring in the Democrat Party.

President Clinton’s former campaign advisor, James Carville, recently blasted Obama for his handling of the BP oil spill. On July 28, in a joint commentary in The Wall Street Journal, Patrick H. Caddell, a pollster for Jimmy Carter, and Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster for President Clinton, labeled Obama “Our Divisive President.”

“Rather than being a unifier,” wrote Caddell and Schoen, “Mr. Obama has divided America on the basis of race, class and partisanship.” The number of leading Democrat office holders, past and present, that are outspoken in their criticism is becoming a daily event. “President Obama’s divisive approach to governance has weakened us as a people and paralyzed our political culture,” said the pollsters.

None of this bodes well for Obama, despite his ability to raise money for the Democrat Party’s candidates in November and for himself in 2012. It is widely reported that Wall Street, normally a reliable contributor to Democrat coffers, is conspicuously absent at fundraisers.

Obama is Marxist ideologue

All this comes back to the fact that Obama is Marxist ideologue. He is also a liar, a trait no one likes, and a narcissist who gives continued evidence of regarding the presidency as a daily opportunity for self-indulgence and bottomless ego satisfaction.

A recent Investor’s Business Daily editorial said, “As Americans suffer economically, President Obama golfs, vacations, campaigns, appears on a frivolous talk show—and vacations some more. Gee, don’t we have a war and other problems to attend to?”

Obama may not be easily removed, but he can be politically neutralized if Republicans can gain control of Congress in November. There are barely 900 days left in his first and hopefully last term; still time for him and his cadre of czars to do more damage.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

[vector7]

Secession!! Violation of Arizona's Rights

by Slunged on 07/30/10
By: James Hiden

A strong divisiveness has been infecting this great Republic for several years. The reasons are reaching far beyond the smoke filled rooms used by our phony politicians. Their broken promises and force feeding "change"only created a flock of sheep that are all so willing to capitulate to the "status qua". We currently have 60 percent of Americans opposed to this administration's policies and lack of concern. The lackeys and feeble minded law makers in Washington just still cannot figure out why the American people have such disdain for them. The gangsters in Washington have decapitated the head of liberty and cowered to special interests. They have aligned themselves with judicial activists and have overthrown the will of the people. The citizenry of our Republic are in rebellion. According to the mainstream media our lawmakers can "do no wrong".

I sense "secession"

Susan Bolton acted in favor of law breakers when she struck SB1070 with a message to the people of Arizona. The message was clear by telling them "too bad". You illegal aliens can break our laws and you, the people don't matter.

The illegal alien movement ,supported by La Raza and the ACLU have declared their disobedience to the Arizona law.

Judge Bolton removed the authority from the police to enforce the law. The police handcuffed and not the criminals is a terrible scenario acting out in Arizona.

The police stand by as Mexican flags are raised in the streets. Their self serving actions speak volumes of distaste for a country of laws. The State of Arizona has the right to enact it's own laws which follow the US Constitution. Clinton appointee, Judge Bolton has therefor violated Arizona's right to act under their state constitution.

The liberal elitists in Washington see one thing..VOTES!!!!! By tearing down our borders and language..

Secession!! A History Lesson.. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison expounded their views in two sets of resolutions, one written by Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky legislature (1798--1799) and the other drafted by Madison and approved by the Virginia legislature (1798). These Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions asserted the following propositions: The Federal government was formed by a "compact" or contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. Whenever it attempted to exercise any additional, non-delegated powers, its acts were "non- authoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures must serve as "sentinels" to watch out for unconstitutional acts. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. (source: The US History Concise Encyclopedia)

Is secession the answer? John Calhoun, rallying the southern states to secede proved to be disastrous when encountering the Unions military. Close to 700,000 deaths were caused by the war. Lincoln used his war powers to proclaim a blockade, suspended the writ of habeas corpus, spent money before Congress appropriated it, and imprisoned between 15,000 and 18,000 suspected Confederate sympathizers without trial.

We should notice the identifiable treasonous acts by our judiciary and mention states rights whenever possible.

Beware of the useful idiot and false promises emanating from congressional or presidential candidates. The results from secession killed thousands of citizens. Now America is facing death from liberal activism and the overthrow of our laws.

[vector7]

First Signs of Civil War begin in the US: Sheriff Tony DeMeo Threatens Force Against Federal Agents

http://sheriffmack.com/ It began with one Sheriff speaking with other Sheriffs about their oaths to uphold the constitution. A new movement is growing in this country in support of limited government, constitutional principles, states rights and a stronger role for sheriffs to play against federal abuse of power. In this 3-part video interview with Tony DeMeo, Sheriff of Nye County, Nevada, he explains that he is a Constitutional Sheriff and that authority for public office holders is derived from the people.

In his own words Sheriff Tony DeMeo describes an incident where federal agents of the BLM threaten him with arrest while the Sheriff issues his own threats of an armed response if illegal seizures of private property in his county continue. Imagine if BLM authorities went ahead with their "normal" operations of seizing cattle found on public property in direct opposition to Sheriff Tony DeMeo warnings? We would witness a standoff with dire consequences.

[vector7]

KUHNER: Should Arizona Secede?

Choice between devolution and dissolution may be inevitable

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner - The Washington Times
6:03 p.m., Thursday, July 29, 2010



** FILE ** In this June 15, 2010 file photo, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer speaks in Phoenix. Donations to a special fund that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer established to help pay for the state's legal defense of its immigration enforcement law now total roughly $500,000. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File )

Judicial activism is pushing America to the breaking point. This week, a federal judge blocked key provisions of Arizona's immigration law, thwarting the will of the people. The decision was ominous and will reverberate for years to come.

Judge Susan Bolton, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, is a liberal elitist who believes judicial imperialism trumps democracy. Her ruling states that local police cannot check the immigration status of people arrested or stopped for violations of the law. In her view, that would amount to an abuse of civil liberties and unduly burden the federal immigration system. She also stipulated that residents cannot be required to carry proof of legal status.

Her decision strikes at the very heart of the Arizona law, S.B. 1070.

Supported by President Obama's Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union, the ruling sets the stage for a protracted legal battle. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vows to appeal the ruling - all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary. In the meantime, the people of Arizona - and America - will continue to endure the onslaught of illegal immigration.

Mr. Obama's decision to sue Arizona is a betrayal of his constitutional oath to secure our porous border. The administration's spin is that the "border has never been more secure." It points to an influx of Border Patrol agents and more resources devoted to enforcement technology.

Yet the reality remains: Aliens continue to cross every day. Arizona is home to more than a half-million illegal immigrants. Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of America. Mexican drug lords order contract killings on Arizona sheriffs. Violent crime is pervasive. Instead of helping the people in need of protection, Mr. Obama is in effect siding with the lawbreakers.

Mr. Obama is playing racial politics with the Arizona law. He is deliberately inflaming ethnic tensions, falsely portraying the law as leading to a repressive police state for Hispanics. Yet the law deliberately bans racial profiling; a Hispanic could not be asked to show residency papers when having an ice cream with his kids, as the president falsely asserted. This is race-baiting and fear-mongering at its worst.

The administration and congressional Democrats are making a strategic calculation. They think the Arizona law may be popular in the short term, not just in the state but across the country, but they are convinced that in the long term, the law will backfire on Republicans - especially with the surging Hispanic voting bloc. Mr. Obama thinks he can aggressively court the Latino vote by demonizing Arizona. This is classic Saul Alinsky-style radicalism: the politics of divide and conquer, pitting races and classes against one another in the service of state power.

The ruling furthers Mr. Obama's radical agenda. Judge Bolton's decision essentially says America cannot protect its national sovereignty. This is tantamount to an open invitation for illegal immigrants to come at will and with impunity. America is thus no longer a real nation-state capable of defending its geographical boundaries, cultural identity and national interests. Instead, it is being reduced to a colony of the new world order - one marked by economic globalization, transnational corporatism, supranational bodies and the erosion of meaningful borders. The liberal ruling class wants to eradicate the nation-state in order to achieve its globalist-socialist utopia. This is why it despises America's federal immigration laws and refuses to uphold them.

The ruling also prevents the state from defending itself; it is unilaterally disarming the people of Arizona in the face of a dangerous enemy. The federal government has shown repeatedly that it is unable and unwilling to secure the border. The Arizona law has the overwhelming support (70 percent) of Arizonans (as well as Americans). It is the collective expression of the people's will to defend their homes, property and lives from criminals. It is the democratic embodiment of securing their God-given rights to life, liberty and self-government.

Yet Judge Bolton and the Obama administration are making a neo-aristocratic argument: Leftist judges - elitist activists in black robes - override democratic legitimacy. This is a form of soft authoritarianism.

In response to a controversial 1832 ruling by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, President Andrew Jackson reputedly said: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." Mrs. Brewer should take a page from Old Hickory's playbook: Judge Bolton has made her decision, now let her enforce it.The Arizona governor should stand on the bedrock principles of states' rights and democratic self-government and insist that S.B. 1070 go into effect despite the federal ban. This would set up a constitutional showdown between Mrs. Brewer and Mr. Obama, Arizona and Washington. What would the Justice Department do: carry Mrs. Brewer off in handcuffs and throw her in prison? In other words, the people of Arizona should engage in peaceful civil disobedience.

For too long, liberals have successfully used the courts to impose radical social engineering upon a recalcitrant population. Abortion, homosexual marriage, pornography, racial quotas, affirmative action, a ban on public school prayer - all of these issues have been imposed by an imperial judiciary against the wishes of the majority. The Arizona law is the reassertion of democratic self-rule against the federal leviathan.

Arizona is where the old republic will stand or fall. It is showdown at high noon. Either America returns to its constitutional system based on real federalism, states' rights, individual liberty and decentralized power, or it continues to slide toward the darkness of a socialist superstate.

Washington - with its swollen bureaucracy, imperial arrogance, rampant corruption and dangerous detachment from ordinary citizens - is despised and distrusted by many Americans. A secession of the heart is taking place - a profound alienation from the liberal ruling class.

In the future, many states - including Arizona - may decide they have no other option but to break away from the union. The choice is becoming starkly apparent: devolution or dissolution.

[vector7]

Video: Southern National Congress Documentary
A VisionHouse Filmz Presentation

AIC - Video Documentary
America in Crisis: A Southern Solution - a Southern National Congress video documentary. This is a feature length presentation of one hour and twenty minutes. The third Southern National Congress will be held in November, 2010.

[American Patriot]

Neither is a civil war. If it comes, so be it, I'll fight for Americans.

But I won't start it and no one else here should either. We've got a hell of a lot more to worry about from external threats than our own country.

While our internal politics are certainly FUCKED UP, we can still fix it without violence. I don't care what others are saying about probable civil war.

Too many are looking for the right reason to fight. It will come to them eventually.

[Backstop]

I agree, but let's exhaust all the other options first, because although our cause might be the right one, in armed conflict the fates can be fickle...What i'm suggesting is voting in a conservative congress to check the administration, followed by voting Obama out in 2012. If he and his cronies are hamstrung politically in the interim we can contain the mess he's already made.

I do not want a civil war here; that would be horrible.

Sure seems to be a trend lately - calling for violence.

If folks plan to storm Washington and tar and feather politicians, they are sadly mistaken.

They'll end up DRT of the front page.

That "we" up there in your paragraph.

I'm not sure yet there's enough of us to take control in 2010, much less take back the White House in 2012.