How to Start a Civil War

How to Start a Civil War:

Step 1. Identify your opposition
Step 2. Isolate the leadership
Step 3. Marginalize the target
Step 4. Ridicule the target
Step 5. When all the above steps fail---force a "situation" i.e. send 500 trashy, low class people to a private citizens house to"protest", but what that really means is terrorize the family...

And that is exactly what the SEIU thugs did--under the protection of the D.C Metro police department. Remember though, your government considers peacefully protesting TEA partiers as domestic terrorist---these SIEU thugs are just...community organizers..

"A caravan of SEIU buses receive a Metropolitan (D.C.) Police Department escort to a private home in Maryland where the protesters, from all appearances, violate Montgomery County law by engaging in a stationary protest. The Montgomery County police were not informed by their cross-jurisdictional colleagues of the impending, unusually large protest pending in their jurisdiction.

What’s up with that? Had the mob decided to torch the house, the D.C. police would not have been authorized to intervene. Not their jurisdiction. They’re just escorts. Meanwhile, a teenage boy is home alone, frightened by what’s happening outside his front door.

There’s something very wrong with this picture."

read it all here at BigJournalism

For your consideration:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (exerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

Finding Balance

Balance is hard. Balance is especially hard when the balance beam seems to be getting more narrow by the day. Sometimes balance is easier to find in the bright light of day after a bit of sleep, a good dose of sunshine and several cups of strong cofffee.

I allowed the article I posted a few days ago (see below) to tip me off balance. I didn't fall off the beam completely, I teetered and tottered (new words?) and my thanks to a very nice man who reached through the darkness last night to nudge me back on track.

I am still deeply concerned about this bill in committee, however. I think very many of our governmental agencies and programs which were originally created with the most noble of intentions have now been perverted to serve NOT the people of this country, but to serve and assist the government against the people--as we saw with the recent flap about the Dept of Homeland Security memo. Even though that memo was eventually withdrawn, I have a strong suspicion it will reappear, just with different wording. The same people who produced it are still there, including Napolitano.

I worry about things like that. Sometimes my worry pushes me a bit off balance, but, I have so very much to lose if everything falls apart in this country. I'm willing to be a "wacky right winger" if I have to be sometimes, but most of the time I think I do alright on the balance beam.

Damn Them

When I attended my first TEA party in February, I went with a mixture of excitement and felt a touch of pride. The excitement was because I had never attended a political protest--the pride came because I felt as though I was truly a patriot in the sense that I was planning to exercise my right to peacefully assemble to protest the government for a very valid reason.

This time though, I am nervous and filled with dread. I am nervous those flaky moonbats will show up and some how suck me into interacting with them. Oh I have a plan, but, Mr. Murphy will show up and bring his stupid law and my plans will become his victim, most likely. I don't want to screw this up for the rest of the movement, of course, I could argue with myself that I am not that important that anything I say tomorrow will screw up the TeaParty movement, but I do tend to blurt things out...So I'm going to avoid the moonbats tomorrow if I possibly can, of course it would be very helpful if the flakes tied a sign around their necks or something.

The dread comes in because I'm going to be attending a rally in a larger city and I read the DHS report, then I listened to this exerpt of an interview with the Under Secretary person at DHS. He couldn't deny that DHS will be at the protests filming or taking pictures. Did you hear me? He couldn't deny that DHS won't be taking pictures of the protestors. They aren't going to make a scrap book with those pictures. Those pictures will NOT be used for any thing good.

SO,the damned moonbats and the damned DHS types have completely freaked me out. I dread going to the TEA party, but I'm going. I won't let them intimidate me into staying home. I WON'T allow my fear of my government force me to become mute. I won't allow my fear of confrontation and bullies keep me from doing what I know to be my duty to try to protect the Constitution and my beloved nation.

So listen up all you damned, flaky statists...I'm not going away. You can scare me. You can bully me. You can threaten me. You can mock me. You can label me an enemy of my beloved nation...but I am not going away. It is a disquieting bit of knowledge to come to the understanding that elements of my nation, in a department that is supposed to protect ME from terrorists---now view ME as a right wing extremist. ME. I am a middle aged, slightly greying suburbanite, grandma who has never been arrested, never been sued, never even had an over due library book, the last speeding ticket I had was in the 80s, I vote regularly, I even have a bird feeder and a goldfish pond in my front yard for crying out loud. I am engaged in my community and church, and I am now labeled by my government as a right wing extremist...the world has indeed gone upside down, nuking futs.

(TEAparty FEB 09)


So, now, maybe I can sleep...maybe.

Please tell me this is false?

Ok, a few weeks ago, I blogged about the Missouri memo which specifically targeted rightwingers, Ron Paul supporters and generally anyone who openly opposes BO's socialist plans for this country. Then the memo was pulled, which was a pretty good sign.

Then I get this in an email from a friend. He basically asked me to PLEASE tell him this is a fake. I checked the watermark on the background against a document I have that I know to be real from Homeland Security...the seal appears to me to be genuine. Ok, so check one. Spelling and grammar checks out as to be written by a professional, with good grasp of the English language(maybe eliminating the possibility it was written by a non- English speaking person in an effort to cause trouble between the gov't and the people--I know, thats kinda far fetched but hey, thanks to 9-11 I question everything) I showed this to a few other people who have long experience with gov't documents and none of them found anything wonky with the report. So, I'm going with a reasonable certainty this is a genuine document...and it scares me.

The opening paragraph says

(U//FOUO) This product is one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States. The information is provided to federal, state, local, and tribal counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks
against the United States. Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.
Ok, so I don't have a problem with them hunting down terrorists, until I read further and find out just who they view as potential terrorist. Highlighted words are my own.

UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Page 2 of 9
(U) Key Findings
(U//LES) The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization andrecruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups
during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic
downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability
to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing
extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and
government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first
African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new
members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.
(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the
number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in
violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks,
and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased
government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and
disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

So, in a nutshell...everyone but the liberal leftards should be under suspicion for terrorist activities...fellow Americans;INSPITE of having NO evidence that any group or person is planning an attack. Talk about the politics of fear...my God in heaven have we come to neighbor spying on neighbor? Im SO glad the war on foreign terrorism is over and there are no more threats of "man caused disasters" since BO was elected---now he can focus on weeding out those radical Conservatives.

This is the definition of rightwing extremism according to this document:

U) Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to asingle issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

So, whatever you do, don't talk about the crazy, evil MUSLIM jihadists, or the cowardly Palestinian terrorists who use children for human shields, or ILLEGAL immigrants, or STATES RIGHTS to reject unConsitutional laws or regulations, or the DELIBERATE MURDER OF THE UNBORN in this country...or else you might wind up on the LIST...

Irony and Feeling Bitchy.

Irony. Remember when BO said the surge in Iraq wouldn't work. Even after coming face to face with the fact that the surge did work, he still couldn't bring himself to admit the surge worked. Now, dear leader has decided to give it a go in Afghanistan. Will I be breaking any laws if I call the POTUS a dumbass? I mean, I still have the right to my opinions, don't I? Er...well given that maybe only two or three (four if my brother happens to stop by) might read my comments and all threeish probably agree, I think I am safe for now.

This whole Obama-trauma has left me feeling ...bitchy for lack of a better term. I know it has only been what...two slow torturous months and already I feel like I'm drowning in new policies, new laws, a new f'in crisis every day, a new f'in bailout, congress is either unwilling or unable to stop the madness. Every day we move one step closer to totalitarianism, does that sound melodramatic? I keep telling people what is happening and beg them to call, write, do SOMETHING to slow down this f'in nightmare freight train...and some listen, some call(but I have to hand them the damned number). Why are so many people so complacent? Is it something in the f'in water?

But, to tell the truth, I think most of my family thinks I have gone off the deep end. Or maybe they are just as weary of hearing about this as I am. I am so scared my country is going to disappear. I feel like it is disappearing before my eyes and I am grabbing at straws trying desperately to keep it from fading away. I am haunted by the quote from Reagan "We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth." There is no where else to go. This is it. There is no where for us to escape to, as so many others have done around the world. And where did they flee? They came to America because they knew what Ronald Reagan knew. America is the last best hope of man on earth...but my hope is fading fast.

-------------------------------

Down and Out Progressives, Ctd.

Mike Allen quotes an administration official on Obama's new Afghanistan policy to be announced tomorrow:
President Barack Obama plans to announce an escalation in Afghanistan in a speech at the White House on Friday morning, committing 4,200 more troops and hundreds more civilians, and embracing a new system of benchmarks to measure progress.

“He’s gone all in,” said an official briefed on the plan. “This is Obama’s war. He’s pushed all the chips to the center of the table.”

Some progressives will try and claim that this approach is exactly what they've counseled. The more honest among them will attack the president for escalating the war. But it's clear that the "all in" approach is not what they wanted. Earlier this week Ilan Goldenberg, the policy director at the progressive National Security Network, offered this analysis at the Huffington Post:

The "all in" approach, best exemplified by John McCain and Joe Lieberman's op-ed in the Washington Post, argues for "victory" through a full scale commitment of undetermined length at an undetermined cost. It is supported by hawks like McCain and Lieberman who generally believe that America must "win" any war no matter the cost.

Goldenberg conceded that most progressives and realists favored a "minimalist approach," though he predicted that the administration would pursue a "middle approach" that involves "doing what we can to help the people of Afghanistan, while limiting our military commitment and recognizing that America's ability to influence events in far off unstable states such as Afghanistan is incredibly limited."

I'm struck by a couple of things, but none more so than the fact that the administration's left-wing supporters don't seem to have any real insight into what's going on inside the administration--because the progressives have no real relationship with the "realists" who are making policy. Otherwise Goldenberg wouldn't have offered speculation that was so clearly off-base. Neither would Joe Klein have written just last week:

The Obama plan, I am told, will not immediately add to the 17,000 additional U.S. troops that the President has already approved. And this is the fight that McCain, Lieberman and the neocons are itching for...

The president is going "all in" and adding more troops to the fight. His most vocal supporters on the left had no idea this was coming and if you'd asked them yesterday what they thought of such a plan they would have said it was neocon fanaticism. Now watch how they fall into line. But this policy announcement shows just how little influence, and how little insight, the progressives have right now on this administration.

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on March 26, 2009 06:59 PM

I miss Reagan, don't you?

I miss Reagan
Please watch this amazing speech by Ronald Reagan, on behalf of Barry Goldwater in 1967...his words ring so true, especially when he speaks of the power of the government treatment of America's farmers. Remember the bailout? It gives the secretary of the treasury the exact same powers over America's banks.

And then this quote, even though he was speaking of our Cold War enemies, it still rings true today.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum.

And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.

If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance.

"You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness."



++++++++++++++++++++++



++++++++++++++++++++