Don't forget the armed architecture of troop cadre that he has OUTSIDE of the military in the FEMA/USHSP (R)/CDC/IRS enforcement arms
they are armed, they are not respondent to any military chain of command - they will be used as our version of the NKVD
you will be a subversive if you own a gun (any) refuse to have your house on the grid, use resources outside of 'approved' 'certified' methods (they have flipped so many times on rain barrels - I cant keep track) whether you drive in out of bounds areas, go to the 'wrong' church - and of course - fail to register for the new 'draft' the medical PPACA (all that thing is is the forced registration and integration of oligarchy power) pure Trojan Horse.
It gets hot, and soon. Would I fire on an American ? Did they come for me ? Damn right. Preferably at 300 yards, closer if necessary: but I will not go quietly.
I think we know who the zombies are and when the apocalypse begins!
By the way, I do think that about 1/4 to 1/3 or our military would fire on civilians if given the order to do so. Unfortunately, it will be traced along party lines, and there are plenty of liberal-regressive democrats in the military. Not simply democrats, I've met many a good soul that still considered themselves such. I would like to think that, given the opposite party in power that it would not fire on it's own people, but I believe that could be a possibility. If we as a nation are anything like the countries of the middle east who recently went through such trials then we ought to know what kind of a fight we are up against. Will it happen? Not as likely as of today, but I think it is heading in that direction more and more. Could it happen? Definitely.
I don't think anyone can say for sure where they would come down if it came to a Civil War or even trying to quell a riot. FB - don't put words in my mouth. You make it sound like I'm anxious to start capping my fellow Americans. I take offense that you are using me as a poster boy for why the government is going to try to take your guns or slaves or whatever it is you think is important to you. I simply said that there's no way to know how one would react until actually faced with the circumstances where one needs to react. I was scared shitless the first time I deployed. But I remembered my training, kept my wits about me, and made shit happen. If faced with circumstances when I am told to attack American citizens, I will do the same. I will keep my wits about me, and make the right decision. And if I don't, God help me.
And by the way, my classes were biased toward truth - we examined primary sources and found out what really happened. Considering how many of my fellow instructors were raised in the South, and how many of us earned our Masters and Doctorates from Southern universities, I doubt a bias would be against the place where we actually learned about the Civil War.
You sound like you've read mostly Lost Cause history. I have too, but only to better understand the overall historiography of the war, not to pour intellectual concrete in which I could set my opinion.
FB - don't put words in my mouth. You make it sound like I'm anxious to start capping my fellow Americans.
I haven't said anything remotely like that, but I'll admit my words have had some extra sting in them. It's mostly anger at what I see many our federal government, including the President, presently doing - raping this great country, and lying about it through their teeth.
A crap sandwich with a smile, as Lt. Col. Allen West would put it.
I don't discredit your education, and I've thanked you for your service. I've admitted (now for the third time) that I'm not a scholar on this stuff. But damn, man, I know tyranny when I see (or read) it.
I tried to slip out of this discussion last night because I couldn't find a way to make my point without sounding mad and bitter.
So to wake up this morning and take a shot from Blake, well, it fired me up again.
My apologies for being harsh. With any luck I'm done talking about this issue.
Arguing about the cause(s) of the Civil War almost always has people making simplistic statements that ignore the other factors.
More than one cause, more than one group, more than one provocation.
Here, just to throw gasoline on a smoldering match....
WW2 in the Pacific was caused ( in part ) by American sanctions on the Japanese Empire. Japan needed the oil, rubber and food to keep it's population alive, since coal was it's only natural energy resource. We stood in the way of not only the Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, but survival itself.
If America had just stayed a bit more isolationist, perhaps pulled it's troops out of the Philippines as it had China, then there would have been no Pearl Harbor attack, and we would never had entered WW2.
Without FDR's push to arm England & France, Europe would have completely fallen, and without the Allied Bombing campaign, Germany's industrial might could have prevailed over the Soviets.
Alt-history novels about Germany and Japan dividing up America at the Rocky Mts. might then be true. Or we may have been left alone to be the last Republic for quite some time.
But those are all "what ifs" since we DID interfere in Asia, and Japan felt it HAD to take us on. And, in fact, kicked serious butt, since we were not ready for war.
That viewpoint, the we pushed an expansionist Imperial force into conflict has some validity, but does ignore that Japan was going to take the Philippines, and on down to Australia even if they didn't attack the US directly.
Ditto the "war of northern aggression".... the view that Succession was due to the Northern Industrialists illegal attempts to maintain a monopoly. True, but not complete.
"Slavery was the cause" of the Civil War... true but not complete.
Patrick, those are some very interesting links. Makes me want to wash some of my ignorance of political history off. The central demographic theme that exists between large urban regions and the rest of America is something I have known about and thought about for the last 20 years. One thing that is obvious between those two major demographic groupings is that one still values and defends an America that was present until the Fifth Party System(a term I now know thanks to you!). The urban demographic group predates the New Deal Era, but it did not force the(fancy word) dichotomy between traditional American values and the values of the present day liberal progressives. The huge struggles we see regarding the 2nd Amendment, Entitlements, over bearing central government, gay marriage, women in combat, abortion, etc. can be packaged very neatly in that urban demographic. We see it in the various maps of blue and red states and counties. There are literally two different populations diametrically opposed to one another. If it is possible to have a civil war in which peace breaks out, I think we would see two countries emerge based on these demographics. In one, the citizens would enjoy the same rights they have had for over 200 years, in the other, citizens would find far fewer rights and freedom, but much more benefits from government welfare. The biggest friction point in that arrangement will happen when the latter group cannot sustain themselves and want to annex traditional America back into their new progressive urbanism. Heck, let me abbreviate that last name NPU. If the liberal progressives are successful enough under the leadership of Obama I think history will cede the Sixth Party System era to them. On the other hand, should their efforts be short lived, or never materialize, then the next political era may likely be something entirely new, in a back to the future sort of way. I can only hope so.
would they fire on us .... yep - all that needs to happen is that 1) we are the 'enemy 2) they are convinced that their compliance to it is the price for their own safety right down the lines of the Soviet. BOHIKA
I'd love to take credit, but I only read the term "Jacksonian" a few years ago.
I was called a "know it all" by someone a while back. Duh! We're on the Internet.
For example, if we were discussing Civil War history, I know of Pickett's Charge, I know the message was sent "don't charge", it got changed in transit to "charge" and the charge was a disaster. I don't recall, if I ever knew, which direction he charged, or who he charged. But I could look that up, and correct someone else's error.
For a century, more or less, the Progressive movement has gained power and influence. The Education System has deteriorated under that influence, in some folks opinion on purpose, to prepare the unwashed masses for dictatorial rule. After all, if you are never taught history, how can you avoid repeating it?
Others will consider that a paranoid reaction, and it may well be. I'm not one who buys into every conspiracy theory that comes up. I don't think there is a unified command group, Bilterburgers/Trilateral/Masons/etc. that want to rule the world.
I do think there are dozens of groups that want to get as big a piece of the pie as they can grab, and some of them will cooperate, temporarily, to do so.
Is the President a "Communist". Well, duh. But he's not a traditional Stalinist, or Maoist, or even a classic American Progressive. There are a lot a flavors of commie out there. Is He a puppet of George Soros? Seriously? No. Is he influenced by the vast sums of money and aid Soros gives him? Certainly. No one who launders over a Billion dollars in "illegal" campaign funds doesn't owe people. Up to his neck.
Se we get to the topic. Do I think Obama wants to confiscate every citizen's guns and concentrate power in the hands of an elite aristocracy? Sure. He just can't do it as fast as he wants to. But It must be a goal of his, since it's the goal of so very many special interest groups that support him with cash, labor, and cover. The Communist Party USA supports his gun control agenda, and It is certain that if he achieves less than hoped for success, leftist pundits will complain how he failed to live up to his word to them.
BTW, Obama has repeatedly stated that he won't take your guns. He also has made other statements that have turned out to be self serving and false to fact.
He said 'he' would not take guns away; he made no claims against his agents, agencies, bureaus, sub committees or the 'will of the people' as demonstrated by what ever legislation congress/senate pass.
read the Feinstein bill - 'they' are coming for guns. Obama will take another vacation.
Will they fire on us ?.... They have been planning and gaming it for decades. the National Guard / Army have several 'play books' for domestic operations against civil disobedience, mass demonstrations, internment, actions against sabotage / terrorism, and domestic relocation. Those FM pubs are open source; primarily in the MP lane of travel and MOS. The Echo & Bravo stuff is classified - but if you know of the exercises - you know the efforts are decades old.
FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations FM 19-15 Civil Disturbances in Civilian Communities FM 34-60 Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army (TARP) DODD 2311.01 E Law of Land Warfare Detainee Operations AR 95-23 Unmanned Aircraft System Flight Regulations AR 190-8 Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees There are also component and contingent operations for integration with foreign services and UN forces on domestic soil. Its all there, hiding in plain sight, open source. If you want to do some off books reading; look at the white papers out of the UK on Resilience and Sustainability Operations.
I ran across this blog piece that discusses the Civil War and some of what lead up to it. It also touches on current events. Short piece considering the breadth of the subject. It's clear slavery was a central issue that lead to the war. It's also clear that other issues were involved beyond simply freeing slaves. It was complicated enough, with enough wiggle room to allow two sides to take a clear stance of being right. I see many parallels with today's problems. Will this lead to a hot war? I wouldn't want to try to predict that at this point. I can see it going either way.
I find it odd that many claim secession to be illegal. The "legality" is irrelevant when you remove yourself from the government in question. It can not be enforce by a court, but must be enforced by force of some sort. That is as true today as it was in 1861.
I did find the quotes by Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln to be interesting quotes.
