• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Flashpoint, Breaking Point, Civil War?

Is the USA headed for another Civil War?

  • Never Again

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sooner Then We Think

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Eventually

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

Ben H

Well-known member
There are a lot of issues that are pushing the Left and the Right further and further apart, it's not too late for the middle to come together and put this country in the right direction. It may seem far out there to think that this country will engage in another Civil War, but is it really that far out there? Is this country operating like it was intended to? Do we go back to our Constitution or allow this "Progressive" group to attempt to abolish it and start from scratch? Do we keep giving up our sovereignty to foreign bodies? Do we work towards a Global Government, or remain our own power? You hear talk about a NAFTA highway, a North American Union, switching to the"Amero". It was our forefathers intent to keep government to a minimum, and keep it local as possible. These are the topics of discussion, you give your opinion.
 

Tex

Well-known member
I listen to C-Span in the morning sometimes. Yesterday there were 2 or 3 callers who were adamant they would go to the white house and try to overthrow the government, even giving their lives in the fight, if GW tried to take over after he has to leave office.

The idea seems a little far fetched, but so does a lot of other things that have been going on.

Personally, I think Hillary getting elected is the elitist plan.


We definitely need a cleaning that is way overdue.
 

Tex

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Another 9/11 would wake up all but the most liberal of tards.

I think we need to be real careful here. Hitler took over completely after the Reichstag was burned, and of course he declared it was the work of terrorists.
 

jigs

Well-known member
I forsee a civil war, but it will not be as politically motivated as what some think. the economy will bust, and the food prices will skyrocket. and that is where I see those of us able to survive "out here" fighting to protect ourselves from those who grew up on the teet of production.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Ben H said:
There are a lot of issues that are pushing the Left and the Right further and further apart, it's not too late for the middle to come together and put this country in the right direction. It may seem far out there to think that this country will engage in another Civil War, but is it really that far out there? Is this country operating like it was intended to? Do we go back to our Constitution or allow this "Progressive" group to attempt to abolish it and start from scratch? Do we keep giving up our sovereignty to foreign bodies? Do we work towards a Global Government, or remain our own power? You hear talk about a NAFTA highway, a North American Union, switching to the"Amero". It was our forefathers intent to keep government to a minimum, and keep it local as possible. These are the topics of discussion, you give your opinion.

I have been wondering the same thing about Communist China Especially as the workers gain more power through economics. I have often thought that the soldiers of China are all relatives of the general population. I hope one day they will revolt for their freedom and another dictator will not reign.

As for the US certainly none of us hope so but I believe it was Jefferson that said the tree of Liberty has to be watered with the blood of young men if it is to survive.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
It won't be the same as the last one. I don't see states uniting for common cause. I don't even see cities uniting. We are divided within. It is going to be gorilla fighting. Much persecution. It is near and potentially already started in emotion.
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Civil War, but is it really that far out there?

1). No its not that far out there.... we'll probably attack Iran next summer and then on to Venezuela. After all, the US follows the resources of other countries.




Is this country operating like it was intended to?

2) No, we've allowed too many members of the "Council of Foreign Relations" and "Trilateral Commission" to become our congressional leaders.... in both the house and the senate, both republicans and democrats. That's why people cannot understand what is wrong with Congress, why they won't do as the people want whether they are Republican or Democrat. Its because both parties have a goal with the United Nations to become a one world government with equal parity (with the exception of the uber rich who will remain so) to all people. No one will own property but it will be shared by all. That is why I do not want mandatory NAIS until they change the word "premise" to "Property". The constitution is very clear about property but there is no mention of premise.

Start reading the goals of the United Nations if you want a real eye opener to what is planned. It will take them a few more years but they've been working on it (global government) for the last 100 years and they figure they can accomplish goal after one more world war.
The internet has slowed them down because people are more easily able to research what is going on. That's why government wants to control what you can read on the internet and they've already started doing that in other countries. After all, they've almost successfully removed God from everything in this nation and in order to bring about acceptance of world order they must demoralize the people. Porn, homosexuality, a breakdown of the family unit, dumbing down education, a greater dependence on the government for survival so they can dictate what you must do in order to receive the benefit, etc.......


Do we go back to our Constitution or allow this "Progressive" group to attempt to abolish it and start from scratch?

3) We'd have to vote out the CFR members and Trilateral Commission members would be a start.

Do we keep giving up our sovereignty to foreign bodies?

4) If we don't want to have to pay out global taxes, we'd better NOT. If we don't want to be enslaved, we'd better NOT.

Do we work towards a Global Government, or remain our own power?

5) It will happen someday, I just never expected to see it in my lifetime.



You hear talk about a NAFTA highway, a North American Union, switching to the"Amero".

6) Canada has resources but not the manpower. Mexico provides cheap labor. The NAU is not a farce. Clinton intentionally allowed Murdoch and GE to obtain a monopoly over the newspapers, radio and TV stations so that the American people would not receive independent news reporting. This way they could pick and choose what they tell the American people and it worked until people started going to the internet for news.

These trade agreements are a transfer of wealth..... the people provide the labor and work to the wealthy and the wealthy have become greedy so they exploit cheap labor so that they can profit more.

I couldn't understand why we keep allowing communist China products, knowing they are dangerous, into this country. last night on CNN they had a lady explain it......... the WTO rules state we cannot inspect more imports than we do our own domestic products.......... well duh......... we know there are more stringent rules in the USA. Its ludicrous to think we can import 90% of goods and yet only inspect 1% of them because we only inspect 1% of our domestic goods. Now who was the retard that came up with this.......


Edited to add Not to #4 - because we do NOT need a global government.
 

jodywy

Well-known member
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317548,00.html
Lakota Indians Withdraw Treaties Signed With U.S. 150 Years Ago

Thursday, December 20, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Lakota Indians, who gave the world legendary warriors Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, have withdrawn from treaties with the United States.

"We are no longer citizens of the United States of America and all those who live in the five-state area that encompasses our country are free to join us,'' long-time Indian rights activist Russell Means said.

A delegation of Lakota leaders has delivered a message to the State Department, and said they were unilaterally withdrawing from treaties they signed with the federal government of the U.S., some of them more than 150 years old.

The group also visited the Bolivian, Chilean, South African and Venezuelan embassies, and would continue on their diplomatic mission and take it overseas in the coming weeks and months.

Lakota country includes parts of the states of Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

The new country would issue its own passports and driving licences, and living there would be tax-free - provided residents renounce their U.S. citizenship, Mr Means said.

The treaties signed with the U.S. were merely "worthless words on worthless paper," the Lakota freedom activists said.

Withdrawing from the treaties was entirely legal, Means said.

"This is according to the laws of the United States, specifically article six of the constitution,'' which states that treaties are the supreme law of the land, he said.

"It is also within the laws on treaties passed at the Vienna Convention and put into effect by the US and the rest of the international community in 1980. We are legally within our rights to be free and independent,'' said Means.

The Lakota relaunched their journey to freedom in 1974, when they drafted a declaration of continuing independence — an overt play on the title of the United States' Declaration of Independence from England.

Thirty-three years have elapsed since then because "it takes critical mass to combat colonialism and we wanted to make sure that all our ducks were in a row,'' Means said.

One duck moved into place in September, when the United Nations adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples — despite opposition from the United States, which said it clashed with its own laws.

"We have 33 treaties with the United States that they have not lived by. They continue to take our land, our water, our children,'' Phyllis Young, who helped organize the first international conference on indigenous rights in Geneva in 1977, told the news conference.

The U.S. "annexation'' of native American land has resulted in once proud tribes such as the Lakota becoming mere "facsimiles of white people,'' said Means.

Oppression at the hands of the U.S. government has taken its toll on the Lakota, whose men have one of the shortest life expectancies - less than 44 years - in the world.

Lakota teen suicides are 150 per cent above the norm for the U.S.; infant mortality is five times higher than the U.S. average; and unemployment is rife, according to the Lakota freedom movement's website.
_________________
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Interestingly- starting about 5-6 years ago the Right wing conservative groups and publications (including the John Birchers) made a couple of predictions about two world leaders.....

The first was that Russias Putin was not going to step down from his control when his term ran out- that he was changing the laws, so that he still maintained the power...
That has since occurred...

The second was that President Bush was eroding the Constitution setting up all kinds of new "martial law" and postponement/suspension of the election laws under several different scenerios (country under direct attack,intercountry anarchy, state of war, disease outbreak, etc. etc.) and several other rules under martial law that were so broad- that he could/would bring on a state where he would not allow the elections to take place/step down....
Since then this has centered mainly on the belief that GW will, no matter what the intelligence says, attack Iran or cause an incident that leads us to war with Iran which brings on a global Islamic uprising-whereby King George remains in control as the Napoleon of the modern day..... :wink: :( :( :mad:
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The second was that President Bush was eroding the Constitution setting up all kinds of new "martial law" and postponement/suspension of the election laws under several different scenerios (country under direct attack,intercountry anarchy, state of war, disease outbreak, etc. etc.) and several other rules under martial law that were so broad- that he could/would bring on a state where he would not allow the elections to take place/step down....
Since then this has centered mainly on the belief that GW will, no matter what the intelligence says, attack Iran or cause an incident that leads us to war with Iran which brings on a global Islamic uprising-whereby King George remains in control as the Napoleon of the modern day..... :wink: :( :( :mad:
Are you saying you agree with them and that this will happen?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer said:
The second was that President Bush was eroding the Constitution setting up all kinds of new "martial law" and postponement/suspension of the election laws under several different scenerios (country under direct attack,intercountry anarchy, state of war, disease outbreak, etc. etc.) and several other rules under martial law that were so broad- that he could/would bring on a state where he would not allow the elections to take place/step down....
Since then this has centered mainly on the belief that GW will, no matter what the intelligence says, attack Iran or cause an incident that leads us to war with Iran which brings on a global Islamic uprising-whereby King George remains in control as the Napoleon of the modern day..... :wink: :( :( :mad:
Are you saying you agree with them and that this will happen?

I 'm saying that thats what the conservative and right wing part of the Republican party is saying...And it sure shows the fear they have of that man who befriended Putin after looking him in the eye and saying "he got a sense of the mans soul"....
McCain says that he's looked Putin in the eye too and sees the letters KGB :shock:

Not sure if I agree- but I can't hardly wait for the day the man is no longer in office.... :wink: Hopefully we can get someone in there to restore a belief in the Constitution and the Laws of the Land....
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Not sure if I agree- but I can't hardly wait for the day the man is no longer in office.... :wink: Hopefully we can get someone in there to restore a belief in the Constitution and the Laws of the Land....
Just checking. I was about to put you with the crazy conspirators. One would have to be a fool to believe that Bush or any other president could currently over turn the 2 term limit in the U.S. This isn't Russia.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I don't think you could hogtie Bush and make him stay in the Oval Office. He's a lazy bum who never worked a day in his life. Now that Congress is actually questioning some of his edicts and the press is actually pointing out his blunders, he's tired of being President and even might be seeing what a mess he's made of the job. I think he'll be glad to leave DC behind and never look back. He'll find a fancy house in a gated community in Dallas and go back to drinking.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Red Robin said:
Oldtimer said:
Not sure if I agree- but I can't hardly wait for the day the man is no longer in office.... :wink: Hopefully we can get someone in there to restore a belief in the Constitution and the Laws of the Land....
Just checking. I was about to put you with the crazy conspirators. One would have to be a fool to believe that Bush or any other president could currently over turn the 2 term limit in the U.S. This isn't Russia.

You wouldn't believe the number of people that believe that tho---I have talked to many personally...

But years later when looking back at history, many of the German people couldn't believe how they allowed the corporate/elitist run facist propoganda machine, using the threat of national security, homeland security and lies about invasions as the instrument to erode away their laws and Constitution and put Hitler in total and continual power...

At least GW is no Hitler-- where Hitler had charisma and a magnetic/hypnotic speaking ability-- GW says "DUH"...... :wink: :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
jodywy said:
Same story and rumer back when Kinton was pres, he was going to cancel the elections gees :cry: :cry: :cry:

But the big difference is Clinton never put the laws in place to allow it-- GW thru the Homeland Security law has done it--and thats what has got the Conservatives, Libertarians, Constitutionalists all scared......
 

MoGal

Well-known member
I guess I've seen those same articles OT and I've also seen ones where Bush has threatened martial law if Cheney is impeached.

Bush has 745,000 acres in Paraguay bought up, maybe we could be lucky enough that he will move there.


Have no idea if these folks have the investigative skills they say they do but here's the link:

http://corruptioncrusaders.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html

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

Found this 2005 article, Council of Foreign Relations pushing for the North American Union
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html

CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Phyllis Schlafly, July 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."

The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.

It was at this same meeting, grandly called the North American summit, that President Bush pinned the epithet "vigilantes" on the volunteers guarding our border in Arizona.

A follow-up meeting was held in Ottawa on June 27, where the U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, told a news conference that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a statement that the Ottawa report "represents an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."

The CFR document calls for creating a "North American preference" so that employers can recruit low-paid workers from anywhere in North America. No longer will illegal aliens have to be smuggled across the border; employers can openly recruit foreigners willing to work for a fraction of U.S. wages.

Just to make sure that bringing cheap labor from Mexico is an essential part of the plan, the CFR document calls for "a seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico."

The document's frequent references to "security" are just a cover for the real objectives. The document's "security cooperation" includes the registration of ballistics and explosives, while Canada specifically refused to cooperate with our Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).

To no one's surprise, the CFR plan calls for massive U.S. foreign aid to the other countries. The burden on the U.S. taxpayers will include so-called "multilateral development" from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, "long-term loans in pesos," and a North American Investment Fund to send U.S. private capital to Mexico.

The experience of the European Union and the World Trade Organization makes it clear that a common market requires a court system, so the CFR document calls for "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution." Get ready for decisions from non-American judges who make up their rules ad hoc and probably hate the United States anyway.

The CFR document calls for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the United States, including the hauling of local loads between U.S. cities. The CFR document calls for adopting a "tested once" principle for pharmaceuticals, by which a product tested in Mexico will automatically be considered to have met U.S. standards.

The CFR document demands that we implement "the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico." That's code language for putting illegal aliens into the U.S. Social Security system, which is bound to bankrupt the system.

Here's another handout included in the plan. U.S. taxpayers are supposed to create a major fund to finance 60,000 Mexican students to study in U.S. colleges.

To ensure that the U.S. government carries out this plan so that it is "achievable" within five years, the CFR calls for supervision by a North American Advisory Council of "eminent persons from outside government . . . along the lines of the Bilderberg" conferences.

The best known Americans who participated in the CFR Task Force that wrote this document are former Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Bill Clinton's immigration chief Doris Meissner. Another participant, American University Professor Robert Pastor, presented the CFR plan at a friendly hearing of Senator Richard Lugar's Foreign Relations Committee on June 9.
 
Top