Civil War on the Horizon? Possibly, and this is the likely Diving Line

Good 30 minute IN-DEPTH analysis of liberalism vs conservatism, how that relates to securing our borders, and the increasing possibility of Civil War.

[video=youtube;Ck3_hx9IDcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck3_hx9IDcE&feature=youtu.be[/video]

I would be interested in viewing the subject matter but all I see in the post is a empty black rectangle?

CitizenJohn said:

I would be interested in viewing the subject matter but all I see in the post is a empty black rectangle?

Click to expand...

Works fine for me, even on another browser where I'm not logged in.

Try refreshing your browser. If that doesn't work, the problem could be with the settings of your browser, you firewall, your antivirus, or you ISP.

since9 said:

Works fine for me, even on another browser where I'm not logged in.

Try refreshing your browser. If that doesn't work, the problem could be with the settings of your browser, you firewall, your antivirus, or you ISP.

Click to expand...

Check your settings - maybe just left click on the black rectangle.

for kind folk like Happy Caldwell for enlightening Since9 and other followers of his wife's Agap ministries of the impending Civil war! [sarcasm off]

Happy needs to leave to Caesar matters which are Caesar's, and focus as a pastor and evangelist on that which belongs to God.

This forum is full of constitutionalists who know and celebrate the fact that anything not specifically delegated to the federal government within the Constitution, is not authorized by it.

Nothing in that grand document gives the federal government any authority over immigration.

Before anyone tries the argument: no, a "uniform rule of naturalization" is not the same thing at all as immigration.

One of the complaints against King George III was that he interfered with free immigration to the colonies, and would not allow it. With the exception of the Page Act of 1875 and its anti-Chinese offspring, there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant" to the US until the politically-biased Immigration Act of 1903. The first real immigration limitations were in 1924.

"But things were different then, and now we have to face reality!" said those who would ban certain guns.

Oh. Wait. Does that shoe fit?

KBCraig said:

Nothing in that grand document gives the federal government any authority over immigration.

Click to expand...

Well, not directly. However, here's a rather lengthy treatise on this very subject by someone who really knows what they're talking about.

since9 said:

Good 30 minute IN-DEPTH analysis of liberalism vs conservatism, how that relates to securing our borders, and the increasing possibility of Civil War.

[video=youtube;Ck3_hx9IDcE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ck3_hx9IDcE&feature=youtu.be[/video]

Click to expand...

Diving line in title?

Since9, what point are you specifically trying to articulate?

For goodness sake, without any rationale or so much of an intro, you post a thread headline proclaiming Civil War is “a com’n” based on some BS video rant from a religious zealot’s podcast?

Then, you, when challenged about the constitutional aspects on immigration, you state:

since9 said:

Well, not directly. However, here's a rather lengthy treatise on this very subject by someone who really knows what they're talking about.

Click to expand...

Again, you are completely oblique as you absolutely do not make any reference to any point you wish to make towards your headline about “civil war” or immigration whatsoever!

[sidebar: fraid mate if you actually read professor Somin’s 2013 article you would notice he doesn’t support any contention of limiting immigration by the feds and says if the individual states do wish to engage in the practice, from an economic stand point, it is their loss.

Finally, as professor Somin rightly articulates:

Congress could lengthen the waiting period for citizenship, make the test harder, or both. Living for many years in a nation that denies them citizenship rights may be unfair to immigrants. But most would prefer living as a non-citizen in a relatively free and prosperous society to life as a full citizen in poor and often oppressive Third World nations.]

Sorry mate, again, what is your thread’s point?

ps: since9, please feel free to “dive in” any time to present some personal perspective on your subject.

Wanted to say thanks for posting this video, I've been watching it gradually during work breaks so I haven't gotten to the Civil War part yet. Just the immigration and UN issues so far. I've enjoyed it so far, he has a nice delivery, but will have to reserve judgment and finish watching the rest before commenting.

Civil War on the Horizon?

Uh, no

Makes me wonder if some members even listen to the video by their comments.

I finished it today - not bad! Thanks again. Good presenter, actually one of the most polite and calm shows I've seen in years. I'd already read most of the news items covered when they broke, but it was a nice change of pace.

Probably "Civil Unrest" would be a more accurate term for this level of intensity in a conflict. But I'm sure that if you're the one who gets beaten, bones broken, business burned down, shot, peppered, or otherwise attacked by radical violent (mostly Left Wing instigated) groups, "unrest" might seem too weak a word. He's not actually telling the worst of it. But it may be getting better. I think we're actually safer on the street and less likely to have widespread conflicts or possibility of war today than we were during the past few years. When police were getting killed, and various citizens getting killed or seriously injured but not reported on national news - only local, that was a serious time.

I bookmarked the show channel and will probably watch again at some point to see what else he covers. I don't agree with every word, but certainly agree with most of the main points, including the Criminal Immigration Fake "Family Separation" Scam and the real dangers of inciting socialist conflicts (class, race, gender, proclivities and whatever other scams they come up with) in our society. Agree about the ridiculous anti-Israel UN focus. I love Israel, but among all the good I also believe that many churches give Israel(ites) a complete pass for some specific detrimental actions without even noticing. If you really respect someone, respect the real someone.

I was completely comfortable with the Christian, moral, patriotic, and traditional aspects of the show, and couldn't care less whether any anti-gun, anti-speech, anti-liberty sources such as NPR, NYT, or SPLC thinks that is acceptable.

I am confident that any civil unrest will be limited to those locations where lawfully armed citizens are in a distinct minority.

HP995 said:

I finished it today - not bad! Thanks again.

Click to expand...

Much obliged! Glad you enjoyed it.

HP995 said:

Probably "Civil Unrest" would be a more accurate term for this level of intensity in a conflict.

Click to expand...

You have to remember, most people think America has had a civil war -- they even call one period of conflict by that name.

America has had two wars of secession. The first was won by those seceding; the second was lost by the secessionists.

A civil war, by definition, is a battle for control of a nation by conflicting factions. That wasn't the case in 1776 or 1861, and it won't be the case in this hypothetical future civil unrest being proposed by fear mongers.

Unless one of the groups marches into the White House and removes the current occupant and install their own, by force, it's not a civil war.

KBCraig said:

You have to remember, most people think America has had a civil war -- they even call one period of conflict by that name.

America has had two wars of secession. The first was won by those seceding; the second was lost by the secessionists.

Click to expand...

The Revolutionary War wasn't a secession. It was a revolution, hence its name.

A civil war, by definition, is a battle for control of a nation by conflicting factions. That wasn't the case in 1776...

Click to expand...

Correct.

...or 1861...

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

...and it won't be the case in this hypothetical future civil unrest being proposed by fear mongers.

Click to expand...

Depends on how much of the left becomes involved. If it's limited to the current numbers of ANTIFA, BLM, and similar protesters, then you're correct -- it won't be a civil war.

Unless one of the groups marches into the White House and removes the current occupant and install their own, by force, it's not a civil war.

Click to expand...

"Definition of civil war: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country" - Source

While a civil war may involve overthrow of a sitting government, that is by no means any sort of prerequisite. It does, however, have to be a war, but even that doesn't have to involve armed conflict.

1. a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
2. a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism

By definition, wars between states or nations are usually armed, hostile conflicts. Wars between opposing groups of citizens, however, are often waged without armed conflict.

America's second civil war has been simmering since the beginning of The Great Political Polarization, and that began more than a century ago. So long as the conflict remains largely unorganized, all it will ever do is simmer, so let's hope it stays that way, or even better, subsides. Might help if the Demoncraps and Mudstream Media stop lying to the "useful masses."

Oh pray tell since9, et al., since the mutual admiration society have provided a lexicon not statutory definition of the mythical term “civil war” as ‘between citizens of the same country’; but whom are these citizens fighting against and presumed to engage in civil war, federal or state level LEs, state national guard?

Based on the lexicon definition you provided, would not the turmoils going on right now in Chicago between the same ethnicity, but rival gangs, be considered a ‘civil war’?

A further query to enhance your discussion for other interested members, could anyone please provide a USCode or state level statutory definition for ‘civil war’ and judical ramifications of participating in “two or more citizens of the same country but opposing groups, participating under your lexicon definition of the mythical term called ‘civil war’?

I do believe the ghee is flowing freely as you each try to decides who is best dressed of your group.

[sidebar: President Abraham Lincoln's suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861, and he claimed he could do so due to emergency war powers. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861).]

[sidebar squared - 1794 Whiskey Rebellion]

The term "civil war" appears 96 times in the U.S. Code. 32 times under Title 36 "PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS" dealing with the war between the states taking place from 1861 through 1865. The balance for most part also deal also with the war between the states, but refers to a general term of any internal armed conflict between persons of the same country.

Blacks Law Dictionary defines it as: Civil war. In general, any internal armed conflict between persons of same country. War Between the States in which Federal government contended against seceding Confederate states from 1861 to 1865. Also, in England, war between Parliamentarians and Royalists from 1642 to 1652.

color of law said:

The term "civil war" appears 96 times in the U.S. Code. 32 times under Title 36 "PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL OBSERVANCES, CEREMONIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS" dealing with the war between the states taking place from 1861 through 1865. The balance for most part also deal also with the war between the states, but refers to a general term of any internal armed conflict between persons of the same country.

Blacks Law Dictionary defines it as: Civil war. In general, any internal armed conflict between persons of same country. War Between the States in which Federal government contended against seceding Confederate states from 1861 to 1865. Also, in England, war between Parliamentarians and Royalists from 1642 to 1652.

Click to expand...

Things to make you go hummmmm...

Featuring Black's Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

What is CIVIL WAR?

Declared armed conflict between a government and another group from the same country.
https://thelawdictionary.org/civil-war/