Friday, February 25, 2011

Is the United States heading for Civil War?

From what we have seen in our country and around the world, the question of whether we, in our own country countries, might face genuine civil uncivil war has to be asked. The question right behind that one is who profits if that happens?

Here in the United States, more states talk of secession. Some don't want to leave the federal government but like in Pima County, Arizona, they seriously want to become Baja Arizona to disassociate them themselves from Phoenix who increasingly dominates their state and politics.

If that worked for them, unlikely given all the hoops to jump through, Arizona would have the Navajo nation requesting the same thing at the least if not wanting their own country as they consider themselves a sovereign nation now except for wanting federal benefits; and since Egypt gets almost $2 billion a year in aid, they might feel they'd be ahead if they weren't part of this country.

Remember in 2008 when that Russian professor predicted the United States would break apart into six different countries in 2010? Russian Professor Predicts End of US. Well 2010 has come and gone but things do seem to be increasingly divisive.

More and more states are going the Arizona route by resisting federal laws. The newest examples are everywhere, but this is a good one to get the idea of what's going on.


I suppose some would say these things will never pass. Some hope they will but supposing they do, where does that take us?

Let's just take one little example of what is really up with these proposed laws by looking at what a certain group might gain if they can, in the case of say Montana, hamstring the FBI making them only able to arrest someone if their local sheriff agrees.

Tea partiers know why they want that. They can control who that local sheriff is by elections; and if they are running a big militia that would be illegal anywhere and certainly under federal laws, with a tea party sheriff, they can create a little fiefdom that cannot be touched.

Montana had a militia group like that at one time. It called itself something like the Minutemen and refused to pay taxes. Eventually the government went after them. Their leaders were arrested and the group went underground disbanded. Do Montanans want those militia groups to stay active when they are so openly lawless? Some do.

City people might think who cares. Well why we should care is we would be unable to travel anywhere without unique laws wherever we went, without risks of being held up legally in those fiefdoms counties. Law would be whatever the meanest group in that district said it was.

These kinds of laws such as Montana wants and likewise other states, they will break up our country even if they don't require a war to do it. Will the federal government really let them do that, declare their own laws wherever they want? I don't see that happening but then what does the federal government do about it? Would the military stand with the president, the people, or form its own power group?

If we had a civil war here, the question would be who would be on each side of it? It's not South versus North and it's not one issue like slavery-- although it could be secession.

The issues for the tea party folks are things like only paying taxes for what they see as benefiting themselves directly. For some the issues are moral ones where they want their morality values imposed on others.

The idea upon which this country was founded, that we are a united people, this concept of one for all and all for one is not on any tea party slogan. Read their words. They have one slogan-- Me First. Followed by a second one-- we don't like that guy who the rest of the people elected as their president. They might not admit the real reason they don't like him but you listen to it for awhile and it's pretty clear to the other half the country what that reason is.

Little by little the rights of the middle class have been undermined and it has led to some of the anger even in the tea party people. The difference is which rights are they concerned about and it's again where we divide.

Right now we have the union people in most of our states finally feeling they have been stomped on long enough, been devalued and told they have no rights. Their last right to collectively bargain is now on the table. If we can't stand together, we know we fall under the rich and that's what is at stake. Another division though as a certain group feels threatened that they can stand together.

If the people don't stand up together against the increasing portion the rich have taken, who will fight for them? The legislators who have been bought and paid for? The taxpayers who don't want to pay for their kids to go to school anymore because the school doesn't teach creationism?

People don't see how these things impact their own lives and are so easily distracted by clever soundbites. A lot of money can convince a certain group of people in anything as they don't even understanding the founding principles of this country. And they won't if the dumbing down of our education system continues. We have accepted a lowering of standards in our government and the end result is it follows us everywhere on the downward path.

So people are fighting everybody and everywhere; and somebody profits from that happening. You know who that is too... but those wanting a civil war, they don't.

17 comments:

TaraDharma said...

a valuable intellectual exercise, but I just don't see it happening. Despite our differences, or maybe because of them, we are stronger. Can you see all these different countries raising armies? Not likely.

Rain said...

Let's look at what has been happening to our own military-- military evangelism deeper wider than first thought. This isn't Christianity as many people have known it. It's fundamentalism and something I prefer to call christianism. That 30,000 person militia which used to be Blackwater and now is Xe is this version of Christianity. They do not need to raise an army. They already have it.

With all the people in this country who are wanting to change laws to follow their concept of orthodoxy, like is happening with those laws that the governor of Montana is concerned about, it says we could have a civil war here. Now that doesn't mean it would succeed but it would be hell while it was going on. Those AK47s are going somewhere.

Incidentally I don't feel paranoid over this. I just don't believe in putting our heads in the sand. The laws they want to put in place would be abhorrent to me. The laws we have in place right now are abhorrent to us. That's the problem.

Kay Dennison said...

I can't find anything I disagree with in what you have said here. I think there is a lot going on that we can only guess at. And I, for one, am scared. The anger directed at elders because they're collecting Social Security -- a system that they have paid into -- is frightening. Check out this link:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/24/broun_shoot_obama/index.html

These people call themselves patriots and 'real Americans' but their words betray them. They are committing sedition plain and simple. If they really read the Constitution, they would know that.

Ingineer66 said...

I do not see it happening any time soon. If we continue in one direction or another for a long time, then maybe some day. But right now people have it way to good in this country to worry about having a civil war.

I also find it interesting that all of the countries that are experiencing revolts are strong central government states where the wages and production are controlled by the leadership of the nation. This seems to be the type of system that Obama favors where DC has control over wages and prices and production. Hopefully he is learning that this is not good and those evil corporations that he complains about are actually more productive than a government controlled economy.

Rain said...

The way the right wing sees things just amazes me even when it's right leaning like you, ingineer. You seriously think those people are demonstrating because they have government determining they get good salaries and maybe health benefits? Seriously? That's what you think? I just can't believe it. They have lived under a system where you can be arrested for anything with no right to a trial. That sounds more like where Bush was taking us. You can be tortured and you have no recourse. Again who was wanting that? And jobs with benefits and salaries, you jest. They didn't have jobs and that was the upset plus the wealth was concentrated in the hands of their dictators which sounds more like the growing wealth in the hands of a few who want to pay others peon wages. You don't see these demonstrations in France, England, etc. or maybe you do but about like you see it here. You are listening to right wingers too much...

Ingineer66 said...

Rain, if they are not mad about economic issues, then why did Gaddafi raise wages for everyone to try to stop the protests. If he has the power to raise wages for everybody in the country, I would say my statement is true. That was one of the major complaints in Egypt. The poor are very poor and exploited and the people politically connected live high on the hog.

And did you not see the protests in Greece last year? Sixty Eight percent of the population is employed by the government. That is the type of system Obama says he favors and I do not.
Yes the oppression and human rights issues are horrible. But people are worried about their economic situation. That is why people join the Taliban. Yes there are a few hardcore zealots but most of the members are just looking for a pay check and the Taliban was paying its bills when others were not.

It was the same in Northern Ireland. It may have been billed as Catholic vs. Protestant here in this country, but it really was all based on economic issues. People wanted jobs and the chance to succeed. That is the principle that this country was based on and what has made us great for so long. Now the folks in DC that want a strong central government want to try to control as much of the economy as possible so they can pass out the money to their political friends and that is a recipe for disaster. It is no different than the Soviet Union or Sadam Hussein or Egypt. The folks in favor feeding off of the folks that produce the wealth. I prefer a system based on merit where those who do the work are rewarded. Not a system where those who know the government leaders get rewarded.

Ingineer66 said...

Oh and like I said if we go in EITHER direction for too long then we can expect a revolt. That means too far right or left.

Rain said...

Money alone never explains something like what happened in Northern Ireland. Certainly not in Libya. Yes, all the dictators there are rushing to give money to the people to appease them but that doesn't mean it's what caused this problem for the dictators. When all the wealth in concentrated one place, that's a problem. In Egypt it was in Mubarak's circle and the military. In Libya probably the same way. Unemployment in Libyan young was guessed at 50%. There are potential religious reasons that may yet play out on all these countries.

What Americans are saying is too much wealth is concentrated more and more into a few hands and so is the power. Some guess that with the amount of wealth here now almost totally in the hands of the top 5% and some estimate even less, what most Americans are just starting to realize is they are seeing their chances disappear. Homes are being repossessed, jobs taken away that once paid a living wage, and who is not suffering, who is growing richer and richer? And who protects their wealth?

What gets me is the view that Obama wants to control wages. Where have you seen the evidence for that? You don't like a minimum wage maybe. Did it dawn on you if it disappears as many Republicans want, your wages will also go down and along with it your ability to have the nice things many middle class Americans take for granted. Without health care insurance everything you have right now could be taken in an instant and yet you begrudge it to others without corporate or government jobs. That's what gets me.

You get your information from one main source-- right wing bloggers, radio shows and newspapers. The view you have of it is like so many Americans on either side-- one way. Obama has not done any of what you claim or rather they claim but you guys just go nuts on him and ignore who is really taking many people's livelihood and might get yours too one of these days as it's going. Your friend is not on the right.

Rain said...

A dictator in the style of Mubarak and certainly the murderous Qaddafi doesn't even begin to resemble Obama and it is a terrible thing to suggest they do as that encourages the worst of the wingnuts to do something violent, to say something like that recent meeting where the guy asked when someone was going to shoot him and they all laughed! He is nothing like the Middle Easter despots and it is a terrible insult to suggest he is but worse for what it inspires in the nutcases to go along with such a lie.

Rain said...

One other thing you need to realize is that the people in DC didn't take away the jobs. That happened as a part of a worldwide economy and not helped as the US borrowed so much from China to fund our wars that we didn't want to pay for. The deficit during Bush rose astronomically as you well know and with it the interest we owed China. They have taken whole companies and shipped them back to their homeland. Our companies have gone overseas for cheap wages. What does that have to do with DC? That's more those who do nothing to punish the corporations that manufacture over there and ship the cheap goods back here to make their astronomical profits. It has to do with artificially high oil prices for so long that made people like the Koch brothers multi-billionaires enabling them to fund campaigns all around the country to get out of office anybody who wants them to pay taxes on any of what they have.

The wealth of a few people here is a lot like what the Mubaraks have amassed and they didn't even have to pretend to govern to get it.

Ingineer66 said...

I was not comparing Obama to those dictators. I said he is a big central government guy. A statist. Do you deny that? He has demonstrated it with what he says. Not anyone's interpretation of what he says, his actual words.

Rain said...

He's too far right for me to agree with that. He sides too much with business. I am not sure what Obama is and doubt you know for sure either as he doesn't seem to fit a niche in my mind and I am often not any more pleased with him than you are but for different reasons!

Ingineer66 said...

I will give you this. I heard his Education Secretary on the radio yesterday and that guy sounds like the right guy for the job. Not what I expected from the Obama administration. As for Obama not fitting a niche, I kind of agree, because he talks about his beliefs and then he changes them depending on which way the wind is blowing.

Rain said...

I think he's a pragmatist and not an idealist. He is a representative and not a leader. We are a country divided and hence whoever leads us infuriates at least half the country at any one time. He doesn't like making people mad which makes it tough. I don't see one single Republican who I could see representing me at all. They all represent only the extreme right or they don't get in there. Hence we have the gutting of Planned Parenthood that serves women and the poor. That's their target and I see no exceptions. So when a lot of Democrats weren't very happy with Obama being too far right, they stayed home in November and we got this-- a party in control of the House who would gut education and every single program that benefits even the middle class and totally eager to help the richest 1%. I don't have an answer to the problem except I wish the Republicans would put up a real conservative choice. They have no idea what that even is or they'd not have the motley crew they have possibly running.

Ingineer66 said...

That is why I liked Romney. He had business experience to deal with this crappy economy and he was moderate on social issues. And he is good looking which appears to be what many people base their vote on.

I think he would have been far and away a better choice than anybody else, but because he is a member of a cult, many people would not vote for him.

Rain said...

Romney has another problem. Some would see him like Obama for being for something and then against it when the winds change. He has the Massachusetts health care bill which our American one was more or less patterned after and which the far right has demonized.

The other thing is I wonder how good he really was at business. He was born to a prosperous, successful family. He had all the support for what he did with the Olympics from the Mormon Church to help pull off the Olympics and their support is not inconsequential. So many times we get sold somebody has abilities and then you find out it's all spin.

Most of the Republicans who will run have to pass the morality ideology requirements of the farthest right. Romney claims he does now but he didn't always talk that way. Most of the moderates in the Republican party, those who might've understood what that word conservative means, have been pushed out by the extreme elements who only support the wealthy.

I read something this morning about how much to the direction of supporting the Koch Brothers this has all gone and it's scary to someone like me. They talk conservative values like watching the spending but they promote extreme religious values which they espouse and want to force others to follow or else.

Anonymous said...

One cannot put back the clock.