Comments on: Is it the end of the world as we know it, or just a new phase in the battle for America’s soul?

By: Ron19

Ron19 — Mon, 03 Dec 2012 05:55:13 +0000

Ymarsakar #10:

I guess internationals have never heard of our War of 1812, or the Aleutian Islands in WW II. Texans might also remember the Alamo.

Plus Iran ’79 or Benghazi ’12.

What have I missed?

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:08:47 +0000

Many people have said that we can’t fight a war against terrorism without recognizing the true Islamic nature of our enemies. Well they are right but also wrong. To recognize the true nature of our foreign enemies, first we must recognize when our family and the next door neighbors are full of murdering, sadistic, greedy corrupt rapists. When we can do that, then maybe we can worry about that guy killing children 5000 miles away.

But until we do that, we can’t do much about foreign enemies either, all in all. We don’t have our house in order.

The enemy was always yourself. When you cannot be defeated by others, the only one that can defeat you is yourself. That is the same for nations as for a warrior.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 20:06:23 +0000

The US has only ever had wars fought by citizens on our soil. We are known internationally as the only country that has never allowed a foreign army on our soil. Technically correct, although technically wrong too. Depends on when you start counting the US as a “country”. Socially, we became one nation after the US Civil War. And we will become either two + nations or become re unified as one nation (rather than what we currently are), after another civil war. Civil wars cannot be stopped. They will happen almost inevitably, as a society becomes old, decadent, fractured, or what not.

You can’t stop it. And those who have tried, using what they call “political agreements” with the Left and Democrats, didn’t do much in the end except make it more likely more people will die in the war.

By: Spartacus

Spartacus — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 10:12:29 +0000

"Is it the end of the world as we know it, or just a new phase in the battle for America’s soul?" Must these necessarily be mutually exclusive options? The United States is a political entity which has had an absolutely astounding and breathtakingly inspirational* run for several centuries; it is truly exceptional and absolutely without equal in world history. That being said, all good things must come to an end. All empires (and great, magnanimous, imperiophobic republics) ultimately decline and / or fall. This particular republic, however near and dear to our hearts, is infected with a wide variety of cancers, many of which have metastasized. The press, the entertainment world, the universities, primary education, the courts, election integrity, border integrity, monetary integrity, rule of law, civil liberties of dissidents, civil liberties of non-dissidents, the belief of the people in our founding principles, and too many other aspects of our society to name have been critically compromised; the failure of any one of these is potentially fatal to our republic, and they are all failing. We must be clear-eyed about the likely prognosis. America, on the other hand, is the dream of liberty clothed in rule of law and implemented through a constitutional democratic republic, and this dream can never be extinguished. If Chinese idealists can dare to make a replica of statue in New York Harbor which they have never even seen and stand bravely beside it in front of rows of machine guns and tanks; if women(!) in an Arabic nation can step over the dead bodies of people who were gunned down while in front of them in the line to vote, and then dare to dip their fingers into ink to wear the Purple Badge of Courage; how much more then can we, who have tasted sweet freedom, remember what it was like, and rise to the occasion to take it back? But the one thing we must not do is to allow the enemy to choose the battlefield and the rules of engagement by inertia or habit or default; that is fatal. And we will naturally tend to do that: "... all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." In the days immediately after the election, I confess that I wanted to gently and lovingly strangle any well-meaning soul who spoke hopefully about 2016. We could all name several hundred reasons why Mr. Obama should be laughed out of consideration for the position of dogcatcher, even in a dogless town, and the election results prove that our system is not just significantly broken, but satirically broken. That said, the future is wildly unpredictable, and maybe tossing out a candidate as a Plan B wouldn't hurt -- especially Allen West or Bill Whittle or someone similar -- provided that we don't place too much hope in it. There are several peaceful ways of evolving out of our present national form and back into a more federal one, as envisioned by the Founders. And then there's always the hybrid joker in the deck. If memory serves, Napoleon wooed and pursued Josephine, who in turn... tolerated him. Then, upon his return from Egypt and discovery of her infidelity, it was she who had to beg forgiveness from him in order to keep him, and the power relationship between them was forever reversed. I am certainly not nominating Napoleon as an example of moral behavior to be emulated, but suggesting that even should a union be saved, it can be done so in terms more favorable to one party if the threat of dissolution is credible. * Yes, getting back to the etymological roots of things, the phrase "breathtakingly inspirational" is an oxymoron. Sorry.

By: Earl

Earl — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 07:02:25 +0000

YOU, dear BW, have already provided our answer…..here it is:

http://blip.tv/davidhorowitztv/bill-whittle-6444929

I can’t say how MUCH I would enjoy casting my vote for this man in 2016.

By: Ron19

Ron19 — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 06:59:24 +0000

A popular saying is that if you refuse to vote at all because you don’t like your party’s candidate, you are just giving another vote to the other party. The numbers in 2012 vs 2008 demonstrate this.

So why isn’t it the same thing with the fiscal cliff? If we say, ”OK, you asked for it, go on over the fiscal cliff,” why isn’t that the same as condoning the other side’s policies and actions? Is that what everybody cheered about in the Bill Whittle speech we just saw?

By: SADIE

SADIE — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 06:48:30 +0000

War of 1812 to the War of 2012 – “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the fiscal cliff. Reality is, we’ve already gone cliff-diving. Wouldn’t matter win, lose or draw support from the Republicans – it’ll be their fault… they’ve become the political equivalent of Israelis. Welcome to Gaza, D.C.

By: JKB

JKB — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 04:38:14 +0000

It is necessary to objectively assess your enemy. You must be brutal in your acceptance but still maintain you spirit. Right now, the Left is on a push. We’ve nothing to do but accept that many of the “pundits” on the Right want little more than their crumbs from the table. Oh, they write and churn but they seem unable or unwilling to offer a fair assessment of the opposing forces. They go on about the lack of conservatives in academia but only in hopes of getting a quota. They completely ignore the thing to do is not lament the universities but to usurp them.

On the other hand, we have our hopes. One is that absent continuing effort to suppress it, capitalism is the natural state. When the Soviet Union fell, the people organically embraced capitalism. True, some were unhappy but overnight the people went to finding ways to be of service to their fellow man in a mutually fair exchange. And yes, the cronies cornered some markets, but only with the help of the government, which always seeks to reward its cronies.

And look to online learning. We now have the tools to enable education bypassing the universities. True, they still control the “credentials” but the value of that can be swept away overnight. Again, they have the government imposing credential-requirements to shore up their monopoly but as we know, when real knowledge and skill matter in the endeavor, say in transforming the information age, the credential means little to the true movers.

Can we win, well all we have to do is disrupt their brilliant plan and the default is free enterprise. So, yes, we can win and not in a palms up military manner with reports broadwaved. No, we can win buy small timely disruptions that marinate until the brew bursts to bottle. They yell so loud because they know, in the quiet, in the peace, people go back to the organic, natural state.

By: leigh

leigh — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 12:39:39 +0000

I am with you on the final thoughts. Hard to discuss and not sound like a doomsday freak, which is certainly to the advantage of any group hoping to fundamentally transform America. Be prepared to be isolated, belittled, and destroyed Alinsky style for the freak you must be! It seems there is a collaboration of sorts among the different groups wanting to take America down, but if they are successful together, their goals for this transformed America are not the same. Armageddon? I have come to believe the confusion comes when we think the current leader of the free world is operating with a concern about his legacy as a great American president. I just can’t figure out, when the goose is cooked, who he will be celebrating and sharing the meal with. I’m pretty sure any of us who believe in American exceptionalsm will not be at the table. Isn’t there a formula for chaos? Cloward Piven?

By: Michael Adams

Michael Adams — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:31:57 +0000

Formez vos battallions!