Civil War

Civil War
a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

War
2 a : a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end

I have contended for a couple of years now that the United States is in the midst of an undeclared civil war. It is not a an armed conflict and God willing it never will be, but a war none the less (see above definition). What separates this particular conflict from previous political disagreements even the actual American Civil War is that this time it is a struggle to determine the type of government we in the United States will live under , a constitutional republic as was established by our founding fathers or a progressive oligarchy.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people (in democratic republics those representatives are elected by the people) and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

oligarchy: a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

The question that must be asked is; have we reached the point where we are in fact a oligarchy? Personally I think not yet, but we are far down the path towards it and we certainly can no longer be deemed a constitutional republic.

Despite what anyone may think of him or his politics nobody can seriously doubt the intelligence, historical acumen and patriotism of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Although some are trying to portray his most recent proclamations as just political posturing or even more improbable, hyperbole designed to sell his new book “To Save America: Stopping Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine”. Consider that title for a moment, either Newt Gingrich is seriously over the top as many are trying to portray him, or he seriously believes that America is in danger of being taken over by an un-American regime. Because despite protest of many on the left, socialism is un-American plain and simple, to argue that it isn't just shows how far from the Constitutional Republic we have strayed.

Former Speaker Gingrich writes:

"...even more disturbing than the threats from foreign terrorists is a second threat that is right here at home. It is an ideology so fundamentally at odds with historic American values that it threatens to undo the cultural ethics that have made our country great. I call it ‘secular-socialism.”

Those are pretty provocative words, Gingrich is saying that the greatest threat to America is not from abroad but rather from within. Consider also that Gingrich along with those he is accusing has sworn an oath to defend the very thing that he now says is under attack by members of our own government.

Despite the lefts desire to portray Gingrich as a radical there can be little doubt that he is on the side of a constitutional republic which is the legal government of the nation. It would not be Newt Gingrich who is attempting to transform America but rather to preserve it. Radicals and extremist are not commonly known to be the ones who wish to preserve the "status quo", it is radicals who attack the status quo. Which, by the way, may give you an idea of who the true extremist are in today's America. There are those who are fighting to preserve and protect the Constitution such as the Tea Parties and there are those who for some reason think that defending the Constitution is somehow sinister and backwards. Indeed a world upside down.

The recent congress has repeatedly passed various legislation using claims of "crisis" as a means to enact legislation ; with little or no bipartisan support, by short circuiting common parliamentary procedures, by discounting legitimate constitutional concerns and basically ignoring the will of a majority of the American people. That I believe would be a very good description of a burgeoning oligarchy.

Consider another person who is also known to be highly intelligent about both constitutional and economic issues. A person whom is repeatedly and overwhelmingly returned to congress by his constituents. Consider the words of Representative Paul Ryan (R- WI).

...The very idea of government-run health care conflicts with the American idea of a free society and the constitutional principles underlying it—the principles of individual rights and free markets....

He expressed those views prior to the passing of the health care bill. After it was passed he was even more critical

Last week, on March 21st, Congress enacted a new Intolerable Act. Congress passed the Health Care bill – or I should say, one political party passed it – over a swelling revolt by the American people. The reform is an atrocity....

But his criticism of the current leadership of the Democratic party is not restricted to a particular policy issue, no matter how transformative, Paul Ryan sees this drift as a threat to the American way of life in total:

The Progressivist ideology embraced by today’s leaders is very different from everything rank-and-file Democrats, independents, and Republicans stand for. America stands for nothing if not for the fixed truth that unalienable rights were granted to every human being not by government but by “nature and nature’s God.” The truths of the American founding can’t become obsolete because they are not timebound. They are eternal. The practical consequence of these truths is free market democracy, the American idea of free labor and free enterprise under government by popular consent. The deepest case for free market democracy is moral, rooted in human equality and the natural right to be free.

A government that expands beyond its high but limited mission of securing our natural rights is not progressive, it’s regressive. It privileges the powerful at the expense of the people. It establishes the rule of class over class. The American Revolution and the Constitution replaced class rule with a better idea: equal opportunity for all. The promise of keeping the earnings of your work is central to justice, freedom, and the hope to improve your life.

Again a man well versed in the history of our constitutional form of government which he and those he is criticizing are sworn to uphold is asserting that those constitutional safeguards are being ignored by a "progressivist ideology embraced by today’s leaders". To put it bluntly Paul Ryan is making the case that a coup is taking place against the American Republic by a political parties leadership with little regard to America's tradition of popular consent.

If that sounds a bit far fetched, consider the words of one of those progressive leaders when faced with the hurdle of parliamentarian restrictions and overwhelming popular disapproval of the health care legislation. Nancy Pelosi said:

"...It means we will move on many fronts, any front we can...We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will vault in. If that doesn't work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed."

Those are the sentiments of a oligarch not a representative of the people in a constitutional republic.

*******

Consider a speech given on the House floor recently by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) in response to Mexican president Calderon's speech to Congress where many Democratic legislators as well as Administration members stood and applauded as a foreign president condemned Arizona's immigration law.

That is the broader meaning of our nation’s motto, “E Pluribus Unum” – from many people, one people, the American people.

But there is now an element in our political structure that seeks to undermine that concept of “E Pluribus Unum.” It seeks to hyphenate Americans, to develop linguistic divisions, to assign rights and preferences based on race and ethnicity, and to elevate devotion to foreign ideologies and traditions, while at the same time denigrating American culture, American values and American founding principles

He is accusing his opponents of, not just a difference of opinion on policies but of willfully undermining America while promoting "foreign ideologies and traditions." Less you think that he doesn't know what he is saying and is caught up in political hyperbole, he makes his views crystal clear:

In order to do so, they know that they have to stop the process of assimilation. In order to do that, they must undermine our immigration laws.

He is accusing fellow members of "our political structure" of deliberately undermining the very laws they are sworn to uphold. That is not politics as usual, that is an accusation of sedition.

...Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.

Interesting isn't it that recently the progressives have been throwing around sedition when in fact it is they who are most guilty of such acts. Some would call that transference or it might just be called "Rules for Radicals".

Does anyone doubt that Congressman McClintock does not have a valid argument when a congressman from Arizona calls for a boycott of his own state in order to punish the very people he claims to represent? How can such an attitude be portrayed as anything other than "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique"

What is happening now with increasing frequency and with more urgency is one group of elected officials warning of and accusing other elected officials of undermining and subverting both the Constitution and the Government of the United States.

It would be easy to look at what is going on and attribute it to politics as usual, but it is not. We may have been sliding down this slippery slope for some time but now we, as a nation, have slipped and slid to the very edge of the cliff. Lest we are willing to accept that and do something about it the great liberty loving Republic of the United States of America will fall into the chasm of history as just another grand idea that succumbed to the clutches of statism or worse.

Whether you or I like it or not the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land and deliberate attempts to subvert it go beyond politics it becomes in essence a civil war "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country...between opposing forces or for a particular end."

It is not the defenders of the Constitution who are the transgressors but rather the politicians and their progressive allies in society which are the pestilence upon the land. The vast majority of Americans are more than willing and have expressed the desire to live under the Constitution.

The progressives are malignant usurpers whom do not even have the strength of their convictions to win over public support for their ideals, but must instead wrap themselves in the cloak of Americanism and like parasites eat away at the flesh of liberty for the sake of an egotistical belief in their own schemes. Asserting altruistic goals they , by their actions and agendas demean the very people they gratuitously pretend to care about with an outdated elite arrogance more in tune with feudalism than the free thought they claim to represent.

>.

This is where we are in America and the day is quickly approaching when this virus on our great nation will have advanced so far that only radical surgery will remove it. As it is we are far beyond the easy fix, if liberty is to be the foundation of our country then those who love liberty must make their voices heard and their votes count, we can no longer wait to see the whites of their eyes we must defeat them before they reach and extinguish the shining city on the hillMore...