Why We Are Headed for a Civil War

November 3^rd, 2020 culminated years, no, DECADES of straying from the civic foundation of our nation.  The journey has been an incremental one, but has accelerated to one of giant leaps and bounds in recent years away from the Godly, Constitutional REPRESENTATIVE republic we began with.  So, why do I say we are headed for a civil war?

In a word, UNDERSTANDING.  In this case, understanding of our system of government, how it was founded, and the benefits of our system of government when compared to every other form of government in the history of the world to this point.  And even MORE to the point, the problem is LACK of understanding.

How did we get to the point of this lack of understanding?  Lack of education, and transition to indoctrination.  Most schools today teach only a very superficial level of civics.  Ask a high school senior or most college students today a series of civics questions that go deeper than who was the first president, and the overwhelming majority will not be able to answer them.  What are the Federalist Papers?  How was the Constitution ratified?  What struggles were there in ratification?  Why are we a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, and NOT a democracy?  Why did states INSIST on the electoral college as part of our system of national elections?  What would our country look like WITHOUT the electoral college?  Why didn’t we start by adopting something resembling socialism?  Has socialism EVER succeeded ANYWHERE in the world?  In the world’s history, what has socialism ALWAYS resulted in?  These and many, many more topics were things that CITIZENS were once upon a time REQUIRED to learn in school.  Part of being a responsible citizen, and casting an EDUCATED vote, is thoroughly understanding how your government is SUPPOSED to work.  If you don’t know your history, and you don’t know WHY your government is the way it is, you can EASILY be lied to and fooled into believing any number of falsehoods concerning government.  Thus, the INDOCTRINATION most of our students are receiving now at the hands of teachers who were first NOT educated, and THEN indoctrinated into a system of beliefs that is not based in reality, and which seeks to destroy our Constitution and the Republic.  Think I’m getting ahead of my skis?  How many stories have you heard of “teachers” literally humiliating, or school systems punishing students who espouse a conservative viewpoint or for wearing something with conservative logos?  Dozens, perhaps hundreds.  How many stories have you heard of the opposite, where a student is humiliated by a teacher for espousing a leftist viewpoint?  I won’t say it has never happened, but if it has, it is so infrequent as to not even register on the national radar.  This is ONE SIDED indoctrination, in a system that has been slowly and insidiously taken over by leftists/socialists/communists who HATE what our nation stands for.  Nikita Khrushchev, the former Soviet communist dictator, predicted this would happen.

That is the short version of how we have gotten to the point where half of the population is willing to vote for a candidate whose platform does not contain a SINGLE thing that is based in OUR Constitution.  If you open a copy of our Constitution, and sit it side by side with the Ten Pillars of Communism, then look at each point in the democrat party platform, you will not find ONE thing they support that is Constitutionally based.

Now that we are in the aftermath of the November 3^rd election, and awaiting the final outcome, with half of the country that has NO understanding of civics, half that does, and a system that has been compromised to the point that NEITHER side trusts it, it doesn’t matter WHO ultimately wins the election, half of the voters will not accept the outcome.  The civically uneducated half have also not been raised as ADULTS who can cope with life in general, and can’t handle not getting their way.  This is the half that will FORCE us into a civil war.  They are ALREADY burning down cities, shooting police officers, threatening to storm the White House to “remove” President Trump, threatening to “punish” Trump supporters simply for voting for Trump, etc, etc.  The left does NOT say let’s have a FAIR election that is fully transparent.  They do NOT allow people from the opponent’s side to simultaneously verify votes and processes so NO ONE can say anything was done illegitimately.  No.  The left in areas they control, exclude their opponents from poll watching, verifying signatures, counting ballots, monitoring election machines, etc.  The left demands removal of safeguards designed to prevent corruption at the ballot box.  So, when one side demands fairness, and will accept whatever the outcome as long as it’s fair, and the other side demands cheating and will only accept the outcome they want, the outcome is going to be predictable.  Civil war.

The only way to legitimately head it off now in a way that no one could argue with would be to do the election over again.  This time, it MUST be done with STRICT controls, deadlines, and thorough oversight of EVERY part of the process by BOTH sides so that NO ONE can say at the end of the day that the other side cheated.  What are the odds that will happen?  ZERO.

So, what alternative remains in a country so divided, with one side that refuses to even attempt consensus, and refuses any concession to the other side?  As I see it, the LAST opportunity to avoid bloodshed is for both sides to go their separate ways.  That means an old-fashioned word known as SECESSION.  We agree to divide the nation, do our own thing, and leave the other side alone.  We can trade with each other, but there is no TAKING or redistribution.  How would this play out?  Think of who produces the overwhelming majority of things in this country, and where they are produced.  It’s NOT in the deep blue cities that dominate the POPULAR vote in this country.  Your food is grown largely by conservatives.  Most of the things you NEED to survive on a day to day basis are produced by conservatives, in conservative states.  If red and blue states separate, within a week when the store shelves stop being stocked by trucks coming from conservative states, you will see a zombie apocalypse in the “blue country.”  That will mean either BEGGING us to reunite, or the same civil war we saw in the 1860s, but for somewhat different reasons.

Again, do I think either of these will ACTUALLY be the chosen path, and will either of these avoid a bloody civil war?  No.  I pray to God for a civil, peaceful, Constitutional resolution to our problems.  But I just don’t see it happening.  I fear a civil war is inevitable, and a lot closer than we think.

Making Nixon Look Like a Saint

State of the Union-Loving, Narcissistic, Undocumented President

Lie after lie after lie.  David said it quite well when he said “Obama not only wasn’t contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda.“

Here are a few of the adjectives I would use to describe Chairman Maobama’s State of the Union(s) speech: angry, narcissistic, disjointed, dishonest, unrepentant, unpresidential, classless, lacking decorum, and pathological.

The writer of his speech should be fired, then taken to the woodshed for the number of lies, lack of facts, and other breaches of decorum in the speech.  But we know that will never happen, because O-bow-ma believed just about every word of the speech (except, of course, the part about drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants.)

The few democrats left that might remotely consider themselves as AMERICANS need to head for the life boats.  The true “progressives,” the followers of “the one,” are going down with the ship.

It’s time to start whispering “IMPEACHMENT.”

---

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dlimbaugh/2010/dl_0129p.shtml
There Was the President’s Speech, and There Is Reality
By David Limbaugh
January 29, 2010

Watching President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.

Obama not only wasn’t contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda — even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let’s see how some of his statements match up with reality.

On health care, he taunted congressmen to “let me know” if any of them have “a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses,” as if his own plan would do those things.

Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can’t reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.

Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.

A candid Obama would have said, “If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government’s role in the health care industry, I’ll at least pretend to look at it.” “Make no mistake,” neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can’t abide that. Period.

As for spending, Obama didn’t once apologize for his reckless expenditures. Instead, he blamed his soaring deficits on his predecessor, completely misrepresenting the projected deficits under President Bush and ignoring his own deliberate doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. That’s the issue Americans are losing sleep over, and he offers only Band-Aids and smoke and mirrors.

He says he will freeze a portion of the discretionary budget, but as Cato Institute reports, 83 percent of the budget will be off-limits. Other than his “stimulus” insanity, the real explosion in spending is occurring in the entitlements that he refuses to touch. Even his mini-freeze wouldn’t begin until 2011 (why wait?), and it would be dwarfed by his planned spending increases for other socialistic projects, including a new “stimulus plan.” And how about that assault on personal and fiscal responsibility with his promise to forgive student loans after 20 years?

How Obama can stand before the nation and insist on spending more borrowed money to accomplish something his first “stimulus plan” didn’t achieve (job creation), but exacerbated, is beyond me. How he can blame President Bush for his own broken promise that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8 percent if his “stimulus” bill were implemented is jaw-dropping. He even said he saved 2 million jobs. Scary delusional! Or scary sinister!

Speaking of chutzpah, did he actually dare to utter the words “transparent” and “accountable”? How about those phantom legislative districts receiving stimulus monies, Mr. President? How about that promise to televise the health care debates on C-SPAN?

He said he hadn’t raised income taxes “a single dime” on 95 percent of the people. Yet in almost the same breath, he promised to redouble his efforts on cap and tax, which would increase the average family’s energy costs by almost $3,000 per year. I don’t believe his campaign promise was limited to income taxes, by the way. (He also said he had CUT taxes on the middle class. Being solidly in the middle class, I think I would know if that had actually happened. Reducing my withholding so it looks like I’m getting a tax break, when it actually pushes me into a higher tax bracket forcing me to pay that much and more on April 15th is NOT a tax cut. A “stimulus” check, which just gives back a small portion of what was mine to begin with, is not a tax cut. Giving that same “stimulus” check to those who don’t pay taxes at all is just a handout, and communist redistribution of our hard earned money.)

How about his righteous ranting on earmark reform? Sorry, we’ve been down that twisted road with you before, Mr. President. (There were some 9,000 earmarks in the O-bow-ma porkulus bill. I’d call that a step in the right direction, wouldn’t you? (facetiousness intended))

Then there was his audacious riff on lobbyists. Been there, done that, too, Mr. President, with your phony promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House.

Obama also railed against “partisanship, shouting and pettiness” as he filled most of his speech with just those things, even castigating the Supreme Court, erroneously, for opening the door to foreign corporations’ campaign contributions.

How about his statement that “America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity”? Hmm. Tell that to the Iranian and Honduran peoples. He must have meant once he’s out of office.

Then there was his bizarre out-of-body pivot, when he blamed Washington for our problems. (Narcissistic clown.)

All of this, especially Obama’s obvious incapacity for self-doubt, is disturbingly surreal. (It’s like the speech he gave the other day on “tax cuts.” In that speech, he said “I” over 120 time while mentioning the subject of the speech, tax cuts, only TWICE. It’s kind of like the Toby Keith song “I wanna talk about me.” (I wanna talk about me, Wanna talk about I, Wanna talk about number one…) He is a self-centered, communist/progressive, anti-America, probably NOT American danger to America, our constitution, and our way of life.)

—

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at http://www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

---

PROMISES, PROMISES: A closed meeting on openness

This is the same thing we are seeing from the democrats as the develop their plan to take over the health care system. They are doing it all behind closed doors, with no supervision, and no accountability. They shut the republicans out of the meetings, and then turn around and cry that the republicans won’t offer any ideas. This is like punching you in the face and telling you to quit hitting my fist with your head.

---

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5joOOsTVD57lFwm_InpZY_nRbg4KQD9CDRVOO0

By SHARON THEIMER (AP) – 12 hours ago

WASHINGTON — It’s hardly the image of transparency the Obama administration wants to project: A workshop on government openness is closed to the public.

The event Monday for federal employees is a fitting symbol of President Barack Obama’s uneven record so far on the Freedom of Information Act, a big part of keeping his campaign promise to make his administration the most transparent ever. As Obama’s first year in office ends, the government’s actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president’s words.

“The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails,” Obama told government offices on his first full day as president. (In that case, WHERE’S THE D@$& BIRTH CERTIFICATE?) “The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.” (…and your Occidental College records, and your Columbia College records and thesis paper, and your Harvard records, and your Selective Service registration, your Illinois State Senate schedule, your law practice client list, your record of baptism, and…)

Obama scored points on his pledge by requiring the release of detailed information about $787 billion in economic stimulus spending. It’s now available on a Web site, http://www.recovery.gov. (Turns out most of it is made up. Non-existent congressional districts, “created or saved” jobs based on faulty and coerced reporting, etc.)Other notable disclosures include waivers that the White House has granted from Obama’s conflict-of-interest rules and reports detailing Obama’s and top appointees’ personal finances. (This wasn’t so much an Obama victory as it was him thumbing his nose at us. No lobbyists in the White House? If you believed him on that or anything else, I have beachfront property in Florida I’ll sell you when the tide goes down.)

Yet on some important issues, his administration produced information only after government watchdogs and reporters spent weeks or months pressing, in some cases suing.

Those include what cars people were buying using the $3 billion Cash for Clunkers program (it turned out the most frequent trades involved pickups for pickups with only slightly better gas mileage); how many times airplanes have collided with birds (a lot); whether lobbyists and donors meet with the Obama White House (they do); rules about the interrogation of terror suspects (the FBI and CIA disagreed over what was permitted); and who was speaking in private with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (he has close relationships with a cadre of Wall Street executives whose multibillion-dollar companies survived the economic crisis with his help). (…despite the fact he doesn’t seem to be able to do his own taxes.)

The administration has refused to turn over important records. Obama signed a law that let the Pentagon refuse to release photographs showing U.S. troops abusing detainees, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates then did so. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has refused to release details about the CIA’s “black site” rendition program. The Federal Aviation Administration wouldn’t turn over letters and e-mails among FAA officials about reporters’ efforts to learn more about planes that crash into birds. (You either decide airplanes full of people are more valuable than birds or you don’t. If you choose people and planes, then you smack the Green Peace/Sierra Club idiots in the mouth and issue more hunting permits.)

Just last week, a State Department deputy assistant secretary, Llewellyn Hedgbeth, said at a public conference that “as much as we want to promote transparency,” her agency will work just as hard to protect classified materials or information that would put the United States in a bad light. (A worse light than an idiot president portraying us as week by apologizing for our great accomplishments all over the world?)

People who routinely request government records said they don’t see much progress on Obama’s transparency pledge.

“It’s either smoke and mirrors or it was done for the media,” said Jeff Stachewicz, founder of Washington-based FOIA Group Inc., which files hundreds of requests every month across the government on behalf of companies, law firms and news organizations. “This administration, when it wants something done, there are no excuses. You just don’t see a big movement toward transparency.”

The San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, said it filed 45 requests for records since Obama became president, and that agencies such as NASA and the Energy Department have been mostly cooperative in the spirit of Obama’s promises. But the FBI and Justice Department? Not so much, said Nate Cardozo, working for the foundation on a project to expose new government surveillance technologies.

The FBI resisted turning over copies of reports to a White House intelligence oversight board about possible bureau legal violations. The FBI said it’s so far behind reviewing other, unrelated requests that it can’t turn over the reports until May 2014. (That is simply BS. They are stonewalling to keep incriminating stuff from coming to light.)

“This administration started with a bang, saying this was going to be a new day, and we had really high expectations,” Cardozo said. “We haven’t seen much of a change. The Justice Department said there would be a stronger presumption in favor of disclosure, but that hasn’t been the case.”

Obama has approved startup money for a new office taking part in Monday’s closed conference, the Office of Government Information Services. (Sounds pretty Soviet-esque to me. It should be called the “Ministry of Information.” It’s just another layer of bureaucracy to hide behind.) It was created to resolve disputes involving people who ask for records and government agencies. But as evidenced by the open-records event behind closed doors, there is a long way to go.

“We’d like to know, when they’re training agencies, are they telling them the same thing they’re saying in public, that they’re committed to making the Freedom of Information Act work well and make sure that agencies are releasing information whenever possible while protecting important issues like individual privacy and national security,” said Rick Blum, coordinator of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, of which The Associated Press is a member.

The closed conference will provide tips for FOIA public liaisons on communicating and negotiating with people who make requests, and introduce the new Office of Government Information Services to them, said Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy, which takes the lead on government openness issues.

Pustay said she planned to say the same things at the private workshop that she would say publicly. (Riiiiiight.)She offered these reasons to explain why it was closed: She wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference would be in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where she said a government ID was required to be admitted. The AP and others news organizations routinely enter government buildings to cover the government. Excuses, especially government ones, and ESPECIALLY Obama government ones, are like sphinchters. Everybody has one, and most of them stink.)

Pustay said she is looking for ways to improve how the government responds to information requests, which costs roughly $400 million each year.

The director of the new Office of Government Information Services, Miriam Nisbet, said the event was closed to make sure there would be room for all the government employees attending. (Refer to previous comment about “excuses.”)

“I can understand skepticism anytime a meeting for government people is not necessarily open to the public,” Nisbet said. “However, everything that is discussed there is absolutely available for the public to know about.”

Associated Press writer Ted Bridis contributed to this report.
+

---

‘CHANGE’ With Brass Knuckles

“Bow to me, or else.”  So sayeth the Obamassiah.  Do not break my TEN COMMANDMENTS, or I will unleash Rahm Emmanuel upon you that he may smite you upon the head with a dead fish.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nypost.com%2Fseven%2F07292009%2Fpostopinion%2Fopedcolumnists%2Fchange_with_brass_knuckles_181814.htm

By MICHELLE MALKIN

July 29, 2009 –SIX months into the Obama ad ministration, it should now be clear: Hope and Change came to the White House wrapped in brass knuckles.

Ask the Congressional Budget Office. Last week, President Obama spilled the beans on the “Today Show” that he had met with CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf — just as the number crunchers were casting ruinous doubt on White House cost-saving claims.

Yes, question the timing. The CBO is supposed to be a neutral scorekeeper — not a water boy for the White House.

But when the meeting failed to stop the CBO from issuing more analysis undercutting the health-care savings claims, Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag played the heavy. In a public letter, he warned the CBO that it risked feeding the perception that it was “exaggerating costs and underestimating savings.”

Message: Leave the number-fudging to the boss. Capiche?

Obama issued an even more explicit order to unleash the hounds on Blue Dog Democrats during his health-care press conference. “Keep up the heat” translated into Organizing for America/Democratic National Committee attack ads on moderate Democrats who have revolted against ObamaCare’s high costs and expansive government powers over medical decisions.

Looks like there won’t be a health-care beer summit anytime soon.

The CBO and the Blue Dogs got off easy compared to inspectors general targeted by Team Obama goons. Former AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin was slimed as mentally incompetent (“confused” and “disoriented”) after blowing the whistle on several cases of community-service tax fraud, including the case of Obama crony Kevin Johnson.

Walpin filed suit last week to get his job back — and to defend the integrity and independence of inspectors general system-wide. But he faces hardball tactics from both the West Wing and the East Wing, where first lady Michelle Obama has been intimately involved in personnel decisions at AmeriCorps, according to youth-service program insiders.

Obama Treasury officials forced banks to take TARP bailout money they didn’t want and obstructed banks that wanted to pay back TARP money from doing so. The administration strong-armed Chrysler creditors and Chrysler dealers using politicized tactics that united both House Democrats and Republicans, who passed an amendment last week reversing Obama on the closure of 2,800 Chrysler and GM dealerships.

At the Justice Department, Obama lawyers are now blocking a House inquiry into the suspicious decision to dismiss default judgments against radical New Black Panther Party activists who intimidated voters and poll workers on Election Day in Philadelphia. The DOJ is preventing Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) from meeting with the trial team in the case. Wolf has been pressing for answers on what communications Attorney General Eric Holder and his deputies conducted with third-party interest groups and other political appointees about the case. So far: radio silence.

In the mafia culture, bully boys depend on a code of silence and allegiance — omerta — not only among their brethren, but also from the victims. The victims of Obama thugocracy are no longer cooperating. Perhaps it won’t be long until some of the enforcers start to sing, too. malkinblog@gmail.com