There are many Christians who identify with the Democratic Party.The Democratic Party is becoming more and more socialist.Yet socialism is the exact reason Martin Luther disagreed with the Catholic Church and started the Protestant Reformation.
What is Socialism?
According to Karl Marx, socialism is a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
In essence, it is the political practice of the government controlling the means of production so that the workers can get a fair distribution of the products of that production.
In a simple view, this seems very Christian.We should all do our part to help those less fortunate.
The first problem with this is in the realization that the workers are the means of production.So socialism can only exist if the government has complete control of the people.
In a socialist, the government decides who needs what, and what is needed from them.They may decide you would be a good farm equipment mechanic in Iowa, and you only need a 1 room apartment and no car to do that job.
Socialism is dependent on every person being willing to give up their personal liberties for the good of the masses.
The next big problem with socialism is that it is dependent on the integrity of the members of the government.If you look at every other country that has tried Socialism, this has been a big problem.Politicians have power and power corrupts.
What are Indulgences?
In the middle ages, the Catholic Church started a practice of selling Indulgences.What an indulgence is, simply put, is the penance for a sin, paid for in cash.
Now, the Catholic Church still has Indulgences, but they are not paid for in money.You can receive an indulgence for good works, not in place of them.
In the middle ages, however, the church felt that a donation to the church would allow the church to do good works in your name and that was the same as doing the good works yourself.
Of course, this led to abuse.And that abuse led to Martin Luther’s disagreement with the church that led to the Protestant Reformation.
What Did Martin Luther Say?
Martin Luther argued that good works must be done by the individual.He said that paying someone else to do good works for you did not count.Therefore, buying an indulgence was wrong.
Specifically, Martin Luther said
Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.
Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy.
Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences.
Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.
Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God’s wrath.
Christians are to be taught that, unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences.
Christians are to be taught that they buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded.
Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than their money.
Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them, but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them.
Why Socialism and Protestantism Do not Mix
Taking Matin Luther at his word, the very idea that paying more in taxes so that the government can take care of the poor for you is against Christ’s teachings.
As Christians, you are obliged to do the good deeds yourself.To spend your own time and money caring for the less fortunate.Therefore, it should be expected of Christians to oppose government social welfare programs and instead support community programs to help the less fortunate.
This is a direct contradiction to socialism which preaches that you need to give your money to the government so that they can take care of those less fortunate for you.
I hear this all the time. Whenever someone wants to insult someone who is right-wing, they call them a Nazi. But the truth is, the Nazi party was the polar opposite of right-wing ideology.
Right Wing Ideology, at its core, promotes limited government and individual liberty. Neither of these ideologies are compatible with the Nazi Fascist Platform. Fascism is characterized by authoritarian power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.
What Did The Nazi’s Stand For?
The Nazi party was the “National Socialist German Workers Party” (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). The party was anti-big business, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist. The Nazi’s supported big government, and government controlled education and healthcare. (If you want to know how bad government controlled healthcare can get, in 1940 “Certain German physicians were authorized to select patients “deemed incurably sick, after most critical medical examination” and then administer to them a “mercy death””) The Nazi party made clear that unlike Marxists the party supported the middle-class and that its socialist policy was meant to give social welfare to German citizens.
Nazi Germany also had strict gun laws requiring the registration of all handguns and a permit to own them. Eventually, they supplemented this law by outlawing Jews from owning weapons and confiscating any weapons they did own. This was a part of the 1938 Regulations Against Jews’ Possession of Weapons law. Although before this law came into effect, many people in Germany had their guns confiscated simply for being “untrustworthy”. The existing Nazi gun control laws stated that a person had to be “trustworthy” to gain a permit for a gun, and just about anyone could be considered untrustworthy without any justification.
The Nazi party also took advantage of a paramilitary group known as the Sturmabteilung (aka Brown Shirts). Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, and fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties.
So Far The Left Sound Far More Like Nazi’s
We know the Democratic Party in the US is promoting socialism. They claim that they support the middle-class and that their socialist policy is meant to give social welfare to everyone. They are anti-big business, anti-bourgeois and anti-capitalist. The support strict gun regulation and limiting gun ownership to “approved” people. They have a paramilitary group called ANTIFA that disrupts the meetings of opposing parties. But are they Authoritarian themselves?
Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms. Individual freedoms are subordinate to the state.
It has been said that Authoritarianism can be defined by 4 qualities:
1 Limited Political Pluralism
2 A Basis For Legitimacy Based on Emotion
3 constraints on the public (such as suppression of political opponents)
4 Informally defined executive power
The Democratic Party is quick to suppress political opponents by making false allegations that appeal to peoples emotions so that they can limit political pluralism thus giving them the ability to have executive power that they don’t need to explain.
The confirmation hearing of Brett Kavanaugh was a fine example of the Democratic Party using Authoritarian policy to oppose political pluralism. The Democratic Party brought forth 3 people to make unsubstantiated claims against their opposition. (2 of those people have since admitted to making the whole thing up). Instead of facts, they appealed to emotions to claim that they were not trying to suppress the opposition but instead trying to combat societal problems (like sexual harassment).
It is a common tactic of the Democratic Party. When they have no legitimate argument to oppose the other party, they vilify them by making unsubstantiated accusations.
But Trump Said He Was A Nationalist!
It is true that the Nazi Party were nationalists and the right wing generally considers themselves to be nationalists. But that does not make the right wing Nazi’s.
Nationalism is simply putting your own country first. This is what government is supposed to do. Everyone (left and right) expects the government to act in their own best interest. That is why we elect representatives (people to represent us).
The Nazi party corrupted this idea with racism. They didn’t put Germany’s interest first, they put Aryan Germanic people first. This allowed them to oppress minorities and scapegoat one specific group of people: the Jews.
America is a melting pot. Putting America first is not racist because Americans are from every race religion and ethnic group.
But that doesn’t stop the left from trying to scapegoat one specific group of people. Recently CNN personality Don Lemon said “we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men”. Isn’t it fun how he says we have to stop demonizing people as he demonizes people? I am sure if Don had said “Jew” instead of “white men” Hitler would have sieg heil’d him from the grave… just like the new Nazi’s of the Democratic party cheered him on for demonizing “white men”.
That is what the Democratic Party does. They accuse the opposition of doing what they themselves are doing. This is evident when Hillary Clinton said that you can not be civil with Republicans, and that “civility can start again” after they take back control of the government.
They believe that peace is only obtainable when they control you, control what you think, and control what you do. The good of the country does not matter to Democrats, only the good of the party.
So Why Do Nazi’s Support The Right?
Unfortunately, there are Neo-Nazi groups in this country, and they do tend to support the right-wing candidates. Why is that?
When you support individual liberty and freedom, you have to accept that some people will have opinions that you do not like. You will also have to support their right to have those opinions. There is an old saying. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. This does not mean you have to approve of them or their ideas. And, hopefully, you will do your part to show them the error in their thinking.
The right-wing says I don’t agree with you, but you have a right to your opinion. The Democratic Party says I don’t agree with you, and you have to conform your beliefs to be in line with our parties beliefs.
This may seem acceptable as long as you agree with the party beliefs, but when you don’t, you will be in trouble.
So in a strange irony, the reason racist groups support the right, is the right is tolerant of all people and all beliefs. The left, however, is intolerant of anything that does not follow their strict social ideology.
The right is far from anti-Semitic. As the Democratic Party distances itself from Christian values, more devout Christian people gravitate toward the right. These Christians hold Israel and the Jewish people in high regard. This is why it was a campaign promise of Trump to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Of course, the Democrats were opposed to this, and some say it is because they are Anti-Semitic or support Palestine, but the reality is, the Democrats oppose anything Trump does, even if they supported it the day before.
As an example, in 1995 the house and senate overwhelming supported a resolution to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Neither Clinton, Bush2, or Obama acted on it. On June 3th, 2017, the US Senate unanimously (90-0) passed a resolution calling on the president to abide by the provisions of the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 (ie, move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem). Those same Democratic senators that demanded Trump move the embassy, denounced him for moving the embassy. (you have to wonder how quickly they would have called him an anti-Semite if he had not moved the embassy).
Nazi’s Are Not Right Wing
The simple truth is Nazi’s stood for government controlled social engineering, social welfare, and strict control over the minds of the people. This is not only completely against the Right Wing ideology of limited government and individual liberties, but is actually closer to the Democratic platform of socialism and social justice.
The only reason the Democrats keep falling back to calling the Right Wingers Nazi’s is because everyone can agree that Nazi’s are bad. And by calling everyone they disagree with “Nazi’s” theDemocrats can pat themselves on the back for being “better” than their opponent. Nazi’s have become synonymous with racists. The Democrats love to accuse the right of being racist, so using the “Nazi” slur is just another way to do that. This is because what it truly boils down to is that the Democrats are elitists who think that they are better than you, they know better then you, and you need to just let them control everything… Sounds like Nazi’s to me.
Brett Kavanaugh is a conservative judge with an exemplary track record. He really was the “best person for the job” as his qualifications were exemplary. The Hill went over those qualifications, and you can follow this link to look at them if you haven’t seen them. But as a conservative judge, Brett Kavanaugh had two views that the far left could not accept. He is pro-life, and pro second amendment.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that abortion is in jeopardy now that he has been confirmed. Even CNN will agree that Kavanaugh has stated before that Roe V. Wade set an “important precedent” and that the right to abortion was settled. In fact, several far-right groups like March For Life and the American Family Association opposed Kavanaugh’s nomination because they said he would not have the “backbone” to overturn Roe V Wade.
He may support stricter regulation on abortion, but so do most Americans. NPR recently wrote “Gallup finds that 60 percent of Americans believe abortion generally should be legal during the first three months of pregnancy, known as the first trimester. That support drops by more than half, to 28 percent, once a pregnancy reaches the second trimester; it falls to 13 percent in the third trimester,”. Today’s laws allow abortion almost to the time of natural birth.
This may be the main reason the far left is against Kavanaugh. The left has consistently tried to erode the protections guaranteed under the second amendment with local ordinances and shadowbans. These legislative tricks often end up in front of the supreme court, and it is here that Kavanaugh will do the most harm to the tyrannical plan of the far left. Things like “assault weapon bans”, “High Capacity Magazine Bans”, and other locally passed ordinances meant to undermine the second amendment will eventually end up in the supreme court, and Kavanaugh has now tipped the scales in favor of the second amendment.
In addition, The American Civil Liberties Union has stated that Kavanaugh’s record “demonstrates hostility to international law”. Again, this bodes well for Americans and the second amendment, as many on the far left have hoped to see groups like the UN pass weapons bans that the far left could then use as justification to enforce those bans within the United States.
Attempts Against Kavanaugh
So now we know what the far lefts motive was for trying anything to keep Brett Kavanaugh from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. But let’s look at their tactics because this is what should cause concern for every American no matter what political party you identify with.
The confirmation hearings started out normal enough with the Democrats pushing the abortion and second amendment points. Then, when they realized that those were not doing them any good, they reached for their recent ridicules slur of Russian Collusion. That went nowhere either.
With nothing working to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the far left had to do something drastic.Out came the sexual assault allegations. Dianne Feinstein is said to have had a letter from Christine Blasey-Ford for several months that allege Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a high school party somewhere around 1982. Ford has stated that she can’t remember what year the assault took place, how old she was, what grade she was in, where it took place, etc… The amount of people at the party has changed several times and is different in her letter to Feinstein, her polygraph statement, and her statement before Congress.
Let’s take a quick minute to talk about the polygraph. The far left likes to bring up that she passed the polygraph. What they fail to bring up is that the polygraph only had 2 questions, and neither mentioned Kavanaugh. There have also been claims that Ford has coached others on how to pass a polygraph.
Ford does name 4 people other than herself that were at the party. Among those people are Kavanaugh, his friend Mark Judge (who she accused of helping with the assault), someone named PJ Smyth and Ford’s own “lifelong friend” Leland Ingham Keyser.
Obviously, Kavanaugh and Judge would deny ever being at a party where they assaulted Ford. Patrick Smyth also denied any recollection of the party in question. And Ford’s lifelong friend? Her lawyer told the Senate “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with or without Dr. Ford.”
So there is absolutely zero corroborating evidence for Ford’s story. Maybe this is why Feinstein held onto the letter for months before releasing it. She knew there was no evidence.
So you may be wondering what Christine Blasey-Ford’s motive is for lying under oath? Is she just some stooge of the DNC ready to commit a federal crime to push the agenda of the far left? Does she have a personal vendetta? Is she motivated by money? Maybe all 3.
You may have heard that Brett Kavanaugh’s mother was the judge presiding over Ford’s parents home foreclosure. You may have heard the left try to deny the truth of that story (going so far as to say that it “never happened”). But the court records are public information, and the image on the right is downloaded from the court website. You can go to the site here, and at the bottom of the page search for case number 156006V.
It is true that Kavanaugh’s mother did not rule against Ford’s parents, the issue was dismissed after the parties settled out of court, but that does not mean that Ford did not hold a grudge.
The Morning After Pills
There is a drug called Mifepristone. This drug, also known as RU-486, is a medication typically used to bring about an abortion by inducing a miscarriage. This combination is more than 95% effective during the first trimester of pregnancy. This drug is sometimes called the abortion pill and sometimes called the morning after pill.
In 1998, Corcept Therapeutics commissioned several studies to explore whether mifepristone could help treat other conditions. Christine Blasey Ford participated in numerous published studies, which researched these other uses for mifepristone. You can see here that the “C Blasey is actually Christine Blasey from the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California, USA, and that she is using a Corcept email address. Corcepts only product is Mifepristone.
What does all of this have to do with Brett Kavanaugh? To put it simply, a pro-life organization called Priests For Life sued the department of Health and Human Services over a stipulation in the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to pay for insurance that covers birth control (including abortion pills like Mifepristone). The case made it to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (where Kavanaugh was a judge) and although the case was ruled in favor of the Government, Judge Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with the decision and wrote the dissent.
As this case could likely be appealed, and end up before the Supreme Court, it is obviously in the best interest of a paid staff member of Corcept (like Christine Blasey-Ford) to be opposed to Brett Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court when that happens.
I do not believe that Christine Blasey-Ford’s accusations are true. It is obvious that there is no evidence to back up her case. But let us say for a minute that her accusations are true. Let’s say for a minute that she had reported the alleged assault 36 years ago when it is supposed to have happened. What would have been the outcome? If she had some corroborating evidence, A teenage Brett Kavanaugh might have been arrested. He would have gone to juvenile detention, and gone before a juvenile court. If there had been enough evidence to convict him, he would have been labeled a juvenile delinquent. Flash forward to today and Brett Kavanaugh would be celebrated for being a person who had a troubled youth and turned his life around.
My point here is it is nonsense to attack a 53-year-old person based on actions that they may or may not have committed when they were a teenager. I am not the person I was when I was in High School, and I would guess the majority of you out there over the age of 25 will say the same thing. So what is the point of accusations about Brett Kavanaugh’s behavior in High School? If bad behavior in High School can be used to disqualify people from jobs, most of us would never work.
Who Is The Victim?
The far left has rallied behind the cry “You have to believe the victim”. But who is the victim here? Is Christine Blasey-Ford the victim of a sexual assault 36 years ago by Brett Kavanaugh? Or is Brett Kavanaugh the victim of a smear campaign and false allegation by Christine Blasey-Ford?
Many people say Christine Blasey-Ford’s testimony was compelling, and we need to believe what she said. Her eyewitness testimony is proof enough.
There is a group called the Innocence Project. They use DNA evidence to look at court cases that were settled before DNA was used as evidence, but where evidence exists that DNA can be taken from now, and used as new evidence. Over the past 25 years, they have exonerated 363 people who were wrongly convicted. (that is over 1 person per month) These innocent people served an average of 14 years in prison for crimes they did not commit. 80% of them were convicted solely on eyewitness testimony. The majority of these cases were for sexual assault.
Numerous studies have proved that eye-witness testimony is not reliable and becomes less reliable with the passage of time. As one paper points out: “Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur”. So maybe Christine Blasey-Ford was assaulted. And maybe she believes what she is saying. That does not mean it is the truth.
Ford has no evidence to support her claim, but she does have a motive to make a false accusation. Therefore, the true question is “do you believe the evidence, or baseless accusations? The legal system in this country is set up to protect the innocent from baseless accusations. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, and the accused is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When we start to believe accusations without evidence, we end up having situations like the Salem Witch Trials in 1692.
This is why the far left should be ashamed of what they did to Brett Kavanaugh. This travesty of justice was not only an attack against a conservative Supreme Court Nominee, but it was an attack against the basic principles of our legal system. It was an attack on the very legal protections put in place by our forefathers to protect us from legal abuses. What they have tried to do is set a precedent that a persons life can be destroyed by the mere accusation of wrongdoing. This is an attack on the Due Process of Law, and it is something that should worry every person, no matter the party affiliation.
Most of you are familiar with what happened in Charlottesville Va this past week. And of course, most of the people reading this site are probably frustrated at the complete lie the mainstream media is pushing in regards to what happened.
The simple truth is this: A legitimate protest against the removal of a historical statue took place. An angry hate group attacked the protestors. The police broke up the two groups. Later, a member from the first group was driving down a street that was crowded with protestors from the other group. Someone hit his car with a club of some sort, he sped off and into a crowd of protestors killing one, and injuring many more.
From what I can tell, this is a sad and tragic incident that is the direct result of the protestor striking the drivers vehicle, and not an intentional act of terrorism. But I will let the legal system make a final determination because I do not know what the intent of any of the people involved was.
Why Do I Think This Was Unintentional?
There are several reason I believe this was an unintentional act. The first being that he didn’t accelerate until after his car was attacked. Accelerating to get away from someone attacking you vehicle is a perfectly reasonable action. Especially when you just witnessed these same protestors violently attacking your sides protestors.
Next, he applied the brakes before he actually hit anyone. This, to me, shows that he didn’t originally intend to hurt anyone, and was hesitant to do so, but in that instant thought that going through the crowd was his only way out.
When he does drive into the crowd, he strikes another car, and that car strikes a 3rd car in front of it. This shows that the road was not blocked off to traffic, and he had every right to think that he could safely drive on it.
Lastly, in every photo that I have seen of the driver (both at the protest, and from other sources) he is wearing glasses. In zoomed in frame grabs from the incident, he is not. If his prescription for glasses is strong enough that he could not see well while he is driving, it is easy to see how his anxiety would have been very high at having his car attacked, and his ability to make rationale decisions would have been compromised.
In addition, we have to admit that he seems to already have a problem making rationale decisions because he was marching in a rally with white supremacists… that shows he already has poor decision making skills.
What is the real issue?
What makes this whole issue a problem is that the driver of the car seems to have been a white supremacist (far right hate group), and the people that attacked him, and that he subsequently ran down, were ANTIFA (far left hate group).And while the right is quick to rebuke the far right hate groups, the left seems to embrace the far left hate groups. Many, on the left, would say that groups like ANTIFA, and BLM are not hate groups. and I have even seen some on the left say that there is no “alt-left” (or as we would say, far left).
The mainstream media, and the left in general is caught in a sticky quagmire here. Either there is an alt left, and they are just as violent, and just as big of a hate group as the alt right, and therefore should be disavowed, and shunned, or there is no “alt left” and, therefore, all of the left supports the violence, and bigotry that we see coming from ANTIFA and BLM.
As long as the MSM and the left continue to ignore the violence and the hate from the fringes of the left, we have to assume that it is not the fringes at all, but the mainstream left that is the hate group.
As I write this, it happened again. This time in Fresno California. Kori Ali Muhammad killed 3 people (one of them in the parking lot for Catholic Charities). When the police apprehended him, he yelled “Allah U Akbar”. Of course, the media doesn’t want to tell you that. They say that he shouted “God is Great” in Arabic hoping you won’t notice. They leave out the religion of the victims hoping you won’t think it is significant. They try to pretend that this isn’t a terrorist act.
Maybe they have a point. Maybe “terrorism” isn’t a term we should be using. This is deeper then that. This is Islam against the West.
From San Bernardino to Orlando, Brussels, London, Paris… The list goes on and on. It is Islam versus the West. Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Iran, Egypt, Syria. Islam versus the West. But when did it begin? Schools in the United States tend to be very Eurocentric, so many people don’t understand the whole history of Islam versus the West. Let us go back and look.
Many people will tell you the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2011 where the beginning. Sure, that started the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and began what we think of today as the “war on terror”. But what happened before that?
Throughout the 1990’s the West had serious problems with Islamic countries and movements. From President Bill Clinton’s multiple airstrikes against Iraq, to the infamous battles in Mogadishu portrayed in the movie “Black Hawk Down”. Before that there was the 1st Gulf war. At the same time, Israel and Russia were facing continuous attacks Hamas and the PLO (in Israel’s case) and the Chechnyan Separatists (in Russia).
Islam versus the West is really about Islam versus anyone who isn’t Muslim, and more specifically, Islam versus Judeo-Christianity. Many people do not realize that the Chechnyan Separatists are Muslim. Many people do not consider Russia part of “the West”, (just as many people do not consider Israel part of “the West) so they leave these conflicts out of the equation, and loose sight of the big picture. Israel is predominantly Jewish, and Russia is predominately Christian. This makes them part of the Judeo-Christian “enemy” of Islam, and therefore part of the bigger picture when it comes to Islam versus the West (or Islam versus Judeo-Christianity).
The 1980’s concentrated most of the aggression of Islam into the Russian Afghanistan war, and Israel’s First Lebanon War while America and Europe suffered occasional hijackings, and plane bombings.
In fact, most of the aggression between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West between the end of World War II and the 1970’s stayed in the middle east. In 1973 there was the Yom Kippur war between Egypt, Syria and Israel. From 1967 to 1970 was the War of Attrition. Before that, in 1967, was the Six-Day War, and before that, in 1956, was the Suez Crisis (also known as the second Arab-Israeli war). And before that, in 1948, the 1st Arab Israeli war broke out.
Between World War I and World War II the Middle East was generally quiet as they were under the strong occupation and rule of French and British forces as per the break up of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. Jordan became independent of British rule in 1946, the same year that British troops finally left Egypt. Also in 1946, French troops withdrew from Lebanon and France gave Syria back it’s independence.
Most of what we now call the “Middle East” started the 20th century as the Ottoman Empire. On November 14, 1914, in Constantinople, capital of the Ottoman Empire, the religious leader Sheikh-ul-Islam declares an Islamic holy war (Jihad) on behalf of the Ottoman government, urging his Muslim followers to take up arms against Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro in World War I.
The Ottoman Empire also claimed Caliphal authority from 1362 until it’s demise at the end of World War I. As the Ottoman Caliphate, the religious leaders of the Ottoman Empire claimed to be religious successors to the Islamic Prophet and leaders of the entire Muslim community.
This isn’t the place to go over all of the conflicts between the West and the Ottoman Empire, but in quick order we are looking at the Balkan Wars in 1912-13, The Hamidian Massacres from 1894 to 1896, The Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, the Bulgarian Uprising of 1876, The Caucasian War of 1817-1864, The Serbian Revolution from 1804-1815. As a side note, from 1801-1816, the young United States of America was involved in the First and Second Barbary Wars. These wars were between the US and Sweden on one side, and the “Barbary States” of Tripoli Algiers and Tunis (provinces of the Ottoman Empire) on the other side.
Prior to that there was The Russo-Turkish War of 1768–1774, the Austro-Turkish War of 1716–1718. The Great Turkish War of 1683–1699.
During the 1600’s the Ottoman Empire had many successful campaigns restoring Transylvania to their control, conquering Crete in 1669, and expanding into the Ukraine.
In 1571, the Ottoman naval fleet was defeated by a Catholic coalition led by Spain, and in 1565 the Knights of Malta were able to successfully defend Malta from an Ottoman invasion.From 1533 to 1584 the Russians fought with the Ottomans over Volga and the Caspian regions. Between 1488 and much of the 1500’s the Portuguese and Ottomans fought a number of naval wars in the Indian ocean. In the 1520’s, the Ottomans conquered parts of Hungary and unsuccessfully tried to take Vienna in both 1529 and 1532.
In 1492 (the same year Christopher Columbus sailed for the new world), The Muslim Moors were finally expelled from Spain after continuous fighting there since the first Iberian Crusade in 1212.
In 1453, the Ottoman Empire successfully conquered Constantinople and effectively brought an end to the Byzantine Empire (The Eastern Roman Empire).
The 1300’s was the beginning of the Ottoman Empire that started as a coalition of Muslim tribes under the rule of Tribal Leader Osman I (from whom the name Ottoman comes). During the beginning of the Ottoman Empire and it’s expansion, the western Christian countries were fighting against them in what we call today Crusades.
The first Crusades started in 1096, and were an attempt by European Christians to retake the Holy Land that had been conquered by Muhammed and his successors starting in 622. From 622-32 Muhammad conquered much of Saudi Arabia. His immediate successor (the Rashidun Caliphate) fought the Eastern Roman Empire and took control of much of the middle eastas well as parts of North Africa from 632 – 661. From 661 to 750, the Umayyad Caliphate conquered the rest of North Africa and most of Spain. During the 730’s, Frankish commander Charles Martel (grandfather of Charlemagne who fought the Muslims from 777-812) was able to stop the Muslim invasion of Europe and hold the Moors to Spain. All through the 700’s 800’s and 900’s Muslims were constantly invading Europe. Sicily was finally free’d from Muslim rule in 1091 (just 5 years before the start of the first Crusade).
This list isn’t an exhaustive one (although it may seem that way). But what I hope it shows you is that the current “War on Terror” is not a new thing. This is a conflict that has been going on for 1300 years.
The Jewish people believe that they are descendent from Issac, the son of Abraham, and that the descendants of Issac are Gods chosen people.
The Christian people believe that Jesus Christ, the prophesied Messiah, and Son of God, from the line of King David, a descendant of Isaac. the son of Abraham, opened up God’s Grace to anyone who believes in Jesus.
The Muslim people believe that they are descendant from Ishmael. The other son of Abraham. They believe that the Jewish and Christian teachings of Abraham are lies. That Ishmael was the son that God promised to Abraham.
Whereas Genesis tells the Judeo-Christian world that an angel said of Ishmael (16:12) He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.
Contradictory to that, Islam believes that an angel tells the pregnant Hagar to name her child Ishmael and prophesies, “His hand would be over everyone, and the hand of everyone would be against him. His brethren would rule over all the lands.” according to the Muslim Scholar Ismail ibn Kathir.
So at the very roots of Islam is the idea that the Judeo-Christian people are not God’s Chosen people. The Islamic belief is that we stole that title from them. They are supposed to be the great nation that God promise Abraham, and they should rule the world.
On the other hand, the book of Genesis tells us that they Islam will always be a violent adversary.
There has been a lot of debate over the years as to why “radical Islam” is so intent on committing violent acts against Western Civilization. Some people have gone so far as to say it is Western Civilizations fault to begin with. And although it isadmirable that these people try to look within to solve their problems, it is also not true.
These people like to point at the Crusades in the Middle Ages as the start of Islam’s hatred of the West. Unfortunately, this statement has no basis in fact, and to see why, we need to go back a little further.
In 313 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine the Great decriminalized Christianity across the Roman Empire (which at the time covered most of Europe, The Near and Middle East, and North Africa.) In 380 AD, Emperor Thessalonica made Nicene Christianity (later known as the Catholic Church) the state church of the Roman Empire, and the sole authorized religion. In 382 AD Pope Damasus I commissioned Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus (also known as Saint Jerome) to make a definitive Latin translation of the Christian Bible that became known as the “versio vulgata” (which translates to the “version commonly-used”), or simply “The Vulgate”. This Latin version of the Christian Bible was used by the Catholic church until the 2nd Vatican Council in 1964 when the church then used it to translate into local languages that are used presently at Catholic churches around the world). (this is important later on in this article).
In 476 AD, Rome (the city) fell to Germanic tribes, and the Western Roman Empire fell. However, the Eastern Roman Empire continued on. The Eastern Roman Empire (commonly known today as the Byzantine Empire) had it’s capital in modern day Istanbul (known at the time as Constantinople, named after Emperor Constantine who founded the city). (Both Byzantine Empire and Eastern Roman Empire are more modern terms and the people of the time simply referred to it as the Roman Empire, and called themselves Romans.) During this time, the Eastern Roman Empire ruled over Italy, and much of the near east and north Africa.
In 570 AD, the Islamic prophet and writer of the Quran, Muhammad, was born in Mecca (just outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire.
Muhammad wrote the Quran (the Holy Book of Islam) between 600 AD and his death in 632 AD. In the Quran, Muhammad declares that both he, and all Muslims, are descendants of Ishmael (the first son of Abraham).
By the time of Muhammad’s death, his armies had taken control of much of what is now known as Saudi Arabia. After his death, the Muslim conquest continued, and by 750 AD the Islamic Caliphate had invaded the Eastern Roman Empire territories in much of the near east, and north Africa, and had even gone as far as taking over much of Spain in military conquest. In the east, modern day Turkey was the only thing that stood between the Muslim invaders and the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. In the west, the Franks had stopped the Muslim invasion of Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732.
To the European Christians, (who were no longer ruled by Rome, but still held allegiance to the Pope in Rome), Islam was attacking on all sides, and the Crusades were a defensive war to push back against the Caliphate and reclaim land concurred by Islam.
So if the Crusades were a defensive war to stop (and turn back) the Muslim invasion of Christian lands, then where does the animosity between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West begin? It begins in the very foundation of Islam. As I mentioned before, Muhammad claimed that he (and all Muslims) are the descendants of Ishmael. To understand how this claim puts Islam at odds with Judeo-Christian civilization, we must understand the story of Ishmael.
As we already discussed, the modern Christian Bible (in the Latin form) had been circulating the Middle East for 200 years before Muhammed began writing the Quran. The Christian Bible contains the Old Testament which was a translation of the Greek Septuagint (which was a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). The Septuagint was originally commissioned to be a Greek language version of the Jewish scriptures to be kept in the Library in Alexandria, but quickly became the common form of Jewish scriptures used. Therefore, it is very likely that Muhammad had access to these writings before he began writing the Quran.
Traditionally, the first 5 books of what the Christians call the Old Testament were said to be written by Moses (who lived around 1393-1273 BC), however, secular scholars tend to think they were written around 600 BC. (So the Judeo-Christian version of the birth of Ishmael predates Muhammad’s version by a minimum of 1200 years.)
Genesis (the first book of the Old Testament) brings us the story of Abraham. (beginning at Genesis 11:26). In chapter 15 of Genesis God speaks to Abraham and promises that he will have a son, and that his son will be the father of a great nation, and that his descendants shall be as numerous as the stars in the sky.
However, Abrahams wife Sarai told Abraham that she was barren and could not have children, so if he wanted a son, he should lay with her servant Hagar. From this union between Abraham and Hagar, Ishmael was conceived. God then came to Hagar and told her (Genesis 16:11-12) And the angel of the LORD said to her, “Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
He shall be a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin.”
Then God went back to Abraham (Genesis 17:18-19) And Abraham said to God, “O that Ishmael might live in your sight!”
God said, “No, but your wife Sarah shall bear you a son, and you shall name him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.
Abraham’s son Isaac later fathered Jacob who’s name was changed to Israel and became the father of the 12 tribes of Israel, and therefore the father of all Judeo-Christian people.
In Genesis 21:10-12 Abraham casts out Hagar and Ishmael. So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not inherit along with my son Isaac.”
The matter was very distressing to Abraham on account of his son.
But God said to Abraham, “Do not be distressed because of the boy and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for it is through Isaac that offspring shall be named for you.
Meanwhile, Islam claims to be the descendants of Ishmael, the wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin.
So the old testament stats that Islam (the descendants of Ishmael) will live at odds with all their kin: (the descendants of Isaac, aka all Judeo-Christian people).
Islamic tradition is a little different from the Judeo-Christian version (even though it was likely based off of the Genesis account).
Islamic Scholar Ibn Kathir (1300-1373 AD) wrote that the angel told Hagar that “”His hand would be over everyone, and the hand of everyone would be against him. His brethren would rule over all the lands.” This changes the Genesis story from proclaiming the descendants of Ishmael to be violent madmen to proclaiming them the rightful rulers of the earth.
Islamic tradition also states that Abraham did not cast out Hagar and Ishmael, but instead took them to Mecca, and that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba in Mecca (that big black cube that Muslims make pilgrimage to and walk around in circles during the Hajj).
So the religious implications here are that the (according to Islam) the Jews lied about Ishmael’s(and his descendants) right to “rule over all the lands”, so that Isaac and his descendants (the Jews) could claim that right. Christians were fooled by the Jewish lies. And therefore, Islam must be against Judeo-Christian people.
This is evident in the Opening of the Quran verse 6-7 “Guide us to the straight way. The way of those on whom you have bestowed your grace, not (the way) of those who earned your anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
On the flip side, Judeo-Christian people are left with 2 choices. Either Muhammad is correct that Islam is the descendants of Ishmael, and are therefore like a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin. or they must believe that Muhammed was a liar that made everything up for the sole purpose of tricking other people into attacking Judeo-Christian people.
In the end, it seems obvious that the animosity between the West, and Islam is based in the core beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
In a move that shocked many on the pro immigration left, President Obama eliminated the US policy regarding Cuban immigrants known as “Wet Foot, Dry Foot”. For those that do not know the policy, it was designed to allow Cuban immigrants the ability to stay, legally, in the US provided they actually made it to US soil on there own. Long considered a triumph of liberal immigration policy, one has to wonder why President Obama, a pro immigration politician, ended this policy in what may be the last foreign policy decision of his presidency. But Why?
Obama is Beholden to His Communist Leaders
One theory for why Obama would end Wet Foot, Dry Foot is that because he is just following orders from his communist leaders. Cuba has long been against the policy claiming that it was an incentive for people to flee Cuba. Even though liberals have long claimed that open immigration policies do not create an incentive for people to immigrate, Obama clearly bored to pressures from the communist government of Cuba to rescind the policy.
Could it be that the ending of the Wet Foot, Dry Foot policy is something that was negotiated into part of the normalization of relations with Cuba, but Obama was hoping he could postpone implementation of it until after Clinton took over as president. Since Hillary did not get elected, Obama was forced to push this through himself, or risk losing yet another one of his “proud achievements”.
Obama is Vindictive against Cubans
Leading up to the 2016 presidential election, I saw many left leaning news articles that claimed that Hillary Clinton was going to win Florida because of the large Spanish speaking population. I pointed out that this is a great example of the racism rampant in the elitist Democrat party. Living in Florida myself, and knowing many Cuban immigrants (most of whom lost everything to the Cuban government), I correctly pointed out that the Cuban population in Florida was not only resentful of Obama’s normalization of relations between the US and Cuba, but that many of them were fearful that a Clinton presidency would mean the repeal of the Wet Foot, Dry Foot policy.
As we all saw, Clinton did not win Florida, and that happened in large part because the Democrats did not receive the support they expected from the “Spanish Speakers”. So is Obama’s repeal of the Wet Foot, Dry Foot policy simply a bit of revenge against the Cuban community for not falling in line and supporting Clinton like the Democrats thought they would?
Is This a Childish Attack on Trump?
Whatever the reasons are that Obama decided to end the Wet Foot, Dry Foot policy regarding Cuban immigrants, one thing is clear: the repercussions of this action are something President Trump will have to deal with. Since this policy change happened after the election, many people will place the blame for the policy on Trump. Since the Wet Foot, Dry Foot policy was originally started under the Bill Clinton Presidency, many Republican legislators will fight any attempt to reinstate the policy, and therefore it is a fight Trump will likely decide to avoid. Therefore, many people will see the new policy being implemented while Trump is president, and assume that it is an anti immigrant Republican policy. That seems to be screwed leveraging on Obama’s part…
Whatever the true cause of Obama’s abandonment of his principles on immigration may be, we might never know. However, this betrayal of ideology will long go to remind people that no matter how much politicians like Obama like to pretend they have the moral high ground, their ideology is quickly cast aside whenever it suits them.
Adding insult to injury, the Democrats latest attempt to overthrow the election results has ended in utter embarrassment for them. Calls to “vote your conscious” aimed at Electoral College electors backfired when only 2 Republican electors dissented and voted against Trump (with 1 voting for Kasich and 1 voting for Ron Paul). Meanwhile, 4 Democrat electors dissented and voted against Clinton (with 3 of them voting for Republican Colin Powell). 3 other Democrat electors refused to vote for Clinton, and were replaced by people who would vote for her. Those three electors were from Maine, Colorado, and Minnesota. (here is the New York Times report for those worried this may be “Fake News”)
This comes after the previous attempt by the Democratic party to have the November 8th election delegitimized by demanding recounts in 3 key states. The recounts backfired for the Democrats when the recounted tallies in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin both came back giving Trump more votes then were originally reported, and the recount in Michigan showed evidence of massive voter fraud on the part of the Democrats. 37% of the precincts in Detroit (an area where votes for Clinton far outnumbered votes for Trump) tabulated more ballots than the number of actual voters counted in the poll books.
Of course, the Elites still have a few tactics to try to subvert the election. We have all seen the recent claims that Russia “hacked” the election. Now, when Trump himself brought up the possibility of election fraud leading up to the election, the Elite claimed that the mere mention of someone hacking the election was “an existential threat to the republic.”. They claimed that it was not possible to rig an election. Obama himself said that it is “impossible” to rig an election, and “irresponsible” to claim so. There is some irony in the fact that the people who lost the election and are now claiming that the election was rigged, just a few short weeks ago said that it was a sign of a weak character to claim that the election is rigged simply because it doesn’t go your way.
Then there is the “Fake News” claim. Let’s be honest here, “Fake News” is a name being given to any website that isn’t spewing the mainstream media propaganda. The leaked Podesta emails (that no one is refuting the legitimacy of, although some say they came from a Russian hack, and others say they came from a leak by a disgruntled DNC employee) show that 65 “journalists” from the mainstream media were in collusion with the Clinton campaign to spread pro Clinton propaganda. Now, all reporting is biased. However, when people read a website like Infowars, or even this site, they know to factcheck our claims (something easily done by following the links we provide in the articles). However, most people tend to take mainstream media reports at face value making their bias more dangerous. Freedom of the press exists as a safeguard to our freedom. Other opinions, especially dissenting ones, must be heard. To try to censor these opinions by labelling them “Fake News” is a very dangerous path.
What the “mainstream media” fails to realize is that the majority of Americans no longer believe them because they have been lying to us for the past 8 years. You can tell us the economy is recovering, and unemployment is down all you want, but we know that we are in far worse shape now then we were 8 years ago. Unemployment numbers may be down, but that doesn’t include the record number of people that are “out of the labor force” (these are unemployed people that are not counted in unemployment statistics). The people that are still employed know that we are not earning what we did 8 years ago. Most job growth over the past 8 years has been in low paying “service sector” jobs. Home ownership is at a record low.
The media can tell us that more people have medical insurance now then ever before, but many Americans, myself included, have insurance because it is mandated. The insurance is lousy (only covering 60% of costs, and medical costs have skyrocketed) and we still can’t afford to go see a doctor as a result.
So as the “mainstream media” continued to push propaganda on the masses that was obviously “fake news”, the population stopped trusting the “mainstream media”
Now, all those that still trusted the “mainstream media” are shocked and amazed to see that the real world is much different then what they had been led to believe. They are shocked to see that the Elitist candidate who showed nothing but disdain for the ordinary American did not get the votes of the ordinary American. They truly thought that Hillary Clinton was the only good candidate because that is how the “fake news” from the mainstream media portrayed her. But everyone who had lost faith in the “mainstream media” fact checked their claims and realized that Clinton was in bed with the same “corporate bad guys, and Wall St Banksters” that ruined our country. Anyone who fact checked the popular account saw that Hillary was the racist, the misogynist, the elitist. Trump was the only option for anyone who wanted to get away from the trainwreck that the Obama administration has caused in this country.
But go ahead. Blame the FBI, Blame the Russians, Blame the Alt Media. Blame anyone but yourselves. You can even go back and blame GW Bush, but do yourselves a favor, and wait until Trump is actually in office before you start blaming him.
The 2016 Presidential Election in the United States of America was a historical event on many fronts. For the first time in about 30 years, the Elite lost control of the direction this country is headed. They didn’t know why, and they didn’t know how to stop it.
We saw it at the beginning of the election cycle. Out of left field, the two “anti-establishment” candidates gained massive popular support. Of course, the Elite didn’t mind. They had their candidates: Bush, Romney, Clinton, Rubio… all puppets of the establishment. One of them would win one of the nominations, and then they would win the election.
But then Donald Trump won the republican nomination, and Bernie Sanders looked poised to take the democrat nomination. But the establishment still wasn’t worried. They lied, and cheated and gave Clinton the nomination.
There was no way she would loose to Trump they thought. After all, the establishment controls the media, and through that they control the opinion of the masses.
What the Elite failed to realize is that the people had figured out that the mainstream media was nothing more then propaganda. The people figured out how to find news from other sources.
The Power of the Internet
The establishment has always short changed the power of the internet. The internet has truly given everyone a globally accessible voice. To explain this in better detail, I am going to go over what happened to one establishment industry: Hollywood. Back in the 1930’s and 40’s, the big Hollywood studios had set up a sort of monopoly. If you were a film maker, you had to work within the studio system, or your films would never be seen because the studios controlled the distribution, and exhibition of motion pictures. And although anyone with the money could make a motion picture, if you couldn’t get it distributed you couldn’t get it exhibited, and if you couldn’t get it exhibited, no one would see it.
This gave the media companies to much control over public opinion. So in the 1950’s, the government stepped in to stop this. (or more likely, they stepped in to partner with the media companies for that control). In the 1940’s anti-trust litigation was brought against the 5 major Hollywood studios forcing them to give up the “exhibition” part of their business model. Soon after, television came along and further diminished Hollywoods power to control exhibition of media.
However, over the next 50 years, through mergers and back room deals, Hollywood once again acquired a stranglehold on the distribution and exhibition of media. (for example, Disney owns ABC, ESPN, The History Channel, Lifetime, A&E, and many others. Comcast owns Universal Studios, NBC, Telemundo, E!, The Weather Channel, Syfy, Bravo, Flixster, Rotten Tomatoes, and many others. Time Warner owns Time Magazine, Warner Brothers, HBO, CNN TruTV, TBS, TNT, Cartoon Network, The CW, and many more). But this time, through government programs like “Operation Mockingbird”, the government was in on the plan.
Then along came the internet. The internet gave exhibition and distribution to anyone with access to a computer (or tablet, or smartphone). The establishment has had a hard time dealing with the internet. They have been supportive of it when it suits them, and dismissive of it when it doesn’t. When something on the internet starts to take to much of their viewers (ie money), they first try to absorb it (see Rotten Tomatoes, Shit My Dad Says, etc), and if they can’t assimilate it, they try to destroy it (Hulu was created by the Media Elite to combat Netflix).
The interesting thing is, the establishment is always a step behind when it comes to combating the free distribution of information on the internet. They seem to not know it exists until it costs them.
And this brings us back to the 2016 presidential election. The Global elite seemed to be completely oblivious to the fact that millions of people were getting their news from alternative news sources on the internet. News sources that they didn’t control, news sources that were not regurgitating the same “approved” message. News sources that were telling the truth.
I will admit that many of these alternative news sources online use attention grabbing headlines that may not be an exceptional representation of the content of the story they are attached to, but mainstream media does the same thing. (One needs look no further then the recent terrorist attack at Ohio State University to see this. Mainstream Media quickly dropped headlines that an “Active Shooter” was on campus even though the attacker used his car, and a knife. The only gun on that scene was used by the law enforcement officers that stopped the attack) *The three headlines in the photo to the right are screenshots taken from my feedly news feed. They are from the local ABC, CBS, and NBC stations. I removed the names of the stations to protect my location.
Many online “alternative media” sites are just like the site you are reading right now. We don’t have huge budgets to send out investigative journalists. Instead, we research online. When possible, we link to our sources. Some of our writing tends to be opinionated, but you get that with mainstream media as well. Other news sites (like Breitbart, or Drudge Report) are just as well funded as the mainstream media channels. They have many journalists that are out beating the street just like any other “mainstream” media outlet. (Or maybe not like the mainstream media outlets. It seems like most of their “journalists” were being fed stories at elitist dinner parties. Click here and here for more info on the reporters that met with the Hillary Campaign at secret dinners.
So the Establishment thought they had it all tied up. They thought the majority of people would buy their propaganda, and think the way they are told to think. They ignored the popularity of the “Alternative Media”. But why? Could it be that they had already come up with a plan? There was an idea circulating hundreds of years ago, that in order to control a government, you needed to not only control the media source that would be your biggest supporter, you also needed to control your biggest dissenter. That way, you could control the negative conversation as well as the positive. It seems the elite failed to do this in regards to alternative media. The Establishment seems to have thought that controlling both the left, and right wing mainstream media outlets was enough to control the narrative. However, that stopped working when people stopped trusting either side of the mainstream media.
So now the elite have lost the election. And while I am sure they are in the middle of the power dealing in both Washington and Trump Tower right now trying desperately to insert themselves into the new administration and retain as much of their power as possible, They are also trying to figure out how to retain their power over your opinions.
The first wave of this attempt to neutralize “Alternative media” is to try to make them irrelevant. That term “Fake News” is being thrown around a lot in the mainstream media to describe “Alternative Media”. However, these “Fake News” sites have been just as accurate in their reporting (if not more so) then the mainstream media. The “Fake News” label is a way for the establishment to dismiss the real news in favor of propaganda by telling you that the real news is just “some crazy conspiracy theory”. This is a crazy plan that the establishment has been trying for years, and most of us already know it is just propaganda. So when the mainstream media says the Clinton emails were from the Russians, we know it is just as untrue as when we were told chemtrails are fake and there are no black helicopters.
So what is next? I am sure that as the attempt at censorship of dissenting views by use of the label “fake news” fails, we will then see the elite trying to assimilate the major alternative media sites. Soon, we will see sites being bought up by the major media conglomerates. then they will start peddling their own official left or right views.
However, what the establishment will never fully understand is that for every “alternative site” they assimilate or remove, 10 more will appear. People will always hunt for the truth, and the internet will always have it… if you dig deep enough.
There has been a lot of talk over the past few days of California, and other western bastions of liberalism, wanting to secede from the union and create their own country. But is this possible?
The south tried to secede from the union, and the Civil War ensued. But can it be done in modern times? we often hear threats from Texas claiming they want to secede. From what I have been led to believe, since Texas didn’t officially join the union until after they Civil War, they put safe guards in place to ensure their right to secede. However, the truth is it is not legal for any state to secede from the union.
If a state did vote to secede from the union, that state would immediately be placed under martial law, and their state governments would be officially dissolved. The rights of the citizens of that state would be temporally revoked, and they would be reduced to an occupied territory. A state like Texas would then rise up in armed rebellion. However, states like California have already effectively disarmed the majority of their citizens…
California does have a State run National Guard that could be called to defend the state against the federal forces, but the Ca National guard only consists of about 18,000 troops and an air force of just under 5,000. These troops would be forced to choose sides, and many would defect to the Union leaving well under 20,000 troops against the full force of the US Military. California would quickly become nothing more then an occupied territory whose citizens no longer have any rights under the US Constitution.
California technology and entertainment industries would also fall into upheaval. With most of the the income these companies rely on being protected under US Copyrights and patents, those would no longer be enforceable in the remaining United States unless those companies abandoned California and remained loyal to the Union. Travel for Californian “rebels” would be severely restricted as countries at war usually do not grant travel visa’s.
My guess would be that many of California’s top business leaders and entrepreneurs would figure this out and flee California before the state voted to secede, and many more would become “refugees” as soon as hostilities erupted. This would decimate the productivity, and with it the economy, of California.
Since California’s liberal policies have already done grave damage to the states agricultural industries, That state can not sustain itself with massive importation of food.Since this importation of food would be subject to massive taxes and tariffs, hyperinflation, in a state that already has out of control costs of living, would leave many Californians homeless and starving.
Let’s face it, “Cascadia” could not survive without the aid of the country it wants so desperately to rid itself of. Seceding from the union would be one of the greatest mistakes in history.
But thankfully we know that the very idea is nothing more then hyperbole from a whiny populous who is throwing a tantrum because they didn’t get their way.
When an entire group of people has been raised receiving “participation trophies” and being told that “no one is a loser” the stark reality of loosing can be to much to bear. Let’s all hope that the liberal west coast can quickly come to grips with reality, pull up their big kid pants and get down to the task at hand. Let’s all Make America Great Again.