Country Living Series

Saturday, September 11, 2010

A House Divided

Here is my latest WorldNetDaily.com column entitled "A House Divided."

26 comments:

  1. We need not speculate how each side of the division would fare. We need to merely look
    at the recent past...East Germany vs. West Germany, when that country was divided. One people - 2 different forms of government. The East was so very much worse off in its communist/Marxist life than was the West with its capitalistic system.

    Then we have a current example - North Korea vs. South Korea. How many American progressives would want to live in North Korea? If they were honest, none of them. Yet this is the type of thing they propose for America, whether they are aware of it or not. The Rule of Unintended Consequences seems to apply. Nations that seek government-provided utopia ALWAYS end up in rigid dictatorships instead.

    Would anybody in their right minds want ot move to Cuba or Venezuela? I can hear progressives claiming that those regimes are not what they are talking about when it comes to the government providing "rights" to citizens. But it is precisely those "rights" provided by government that ultimately lead to a government which will curtail "rights" and limit people's freedoms. It happens over and over, and we are seeing it play out in the world today, yet progressives still don't see the light. They refuse to face the facts.

    Socialism/progressivism/Marxism never works. It never has. There will never be a government-provided utopia.

    Divided, we fall. It is not going to be pretty.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm all in on dividing it up. For almost 2 years now I have wonder often "where in the world am I going to go to truly be free".

    Divide it into quarters. Conservatives get the Florida and Washington State quadrants and the Progressives can please take California and New England quadrants. I would probably fall in the Progressive territory but I'm willing to move in a heartbeat if it means freedom to succeed or fail ON MY OWN.

    I know it's not that easy but I am so in if it becomes a possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The division is closer than anyone realizes. Russian political and historical personages have been forecasting a division of the US for decades.

    The Tea party is the start of this division because it is NOT a party it is the beginning of a sectionalist movement. What the main stream media keeps calling racist or republican is really Urban vs. Rural with the previously unseen sub-urbs being the mixing ground.

    People created and moved to the "Burbs" to recreate a bit of urban living but be able to make a living in the city. Now the time of choice is coming.

    ReplyDelete
  4. this country of ours has been divvied up so many times i find it remarkable that we still call ourselves the united states of america. i am at the point where i think everyone should either quit or be fired and just go home..

    ReplyDelete
  5. I couldn't agree with you more. I hope that this thing of ours last a couple of more years though. After this election the dems may be out of control of both houses. Their haste to fulfill their agenda before the new crop of congress critters gets in will only further their downfall. With the new congress unable to overturn a presidential veto, the lack of change for the better will only wake up more Americans to the evilness of the far left democrats and the near left republicans. This will make it a larger chunk of America falling into the conservative camp which will be better for most honest Americans. We could then cast off PR of Kalifornia and the socialist republic of New England. All extremist of the left side would be asked to leave and we could get on with rebuilding our country.

    Ken Lowder
    oneangrytaxpayer.org

    ReplyDelete
  6. As a native Californian and a Conservative, may I suggest we keep California? We could issue gas masks to all Conservative Californians, then fumigate the state to rid it of the illegals, freeloaders, and leftwing loons. Then we'd still have a wonderful place to grow food, harvest lumber, and raise cattle. It is a wonderful state, it's just the lefties and morons who have fouled it.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay, I'd like to toss in my however many cents my ISP is charging me for my time online.

    To see which ideology is doing the best, just look at the map of the last election.

    First, let's look at the "blue," or liberal states. They voted overwhelmingly for this current administration, and foisted their ivory tower ideals on all. HOWEVER, they are also the states that, by and large, are doing poorly in this depression. They are the ones most in hock because of promises to public employee unions, to the poor, illegal immigrants, and so on. They thought they had a bottomless trough, and are now suffering for it. They also have, on average, the highest unemployment. These are people who think of government as some sort of deity as there are heavy concentrations of Federal "workers" in these states.

    Now look at the conservative, or "red," states. These are states where people, in the words of the current administration, "cling to their guns and their religion..." They do not see government as a "savior," nor do they see the current White House occupier as a "messiah." Many also have debt (brought on my mandates from Washington, such as providing freebies to illegals), and unemployment (this current administration sure does HATE small businesses!), but the problem is, by and large, not as bad as the "blue" states.

    What to do? Let the "blue" states have their socialism. Let them try to pull out of depression with government jobs and freebies to non-producers. Heavily tax the private sector to support these leeches. On the other hand, revoke every anti-business law ("clean" air, "clean" water, civil "rights" garbage, ad nauseum). Don't even tax the people, instead go back to the Founders (import tariffs, let the "big box" stores pay for it). Let the people worship as they please, including creches in the town square. Bring God back into the public life. Take away all licenses and permits, especially those that block new businesses.

    Let the two sectors do as they will. One will win out, and that is the way the country will be.

    mbabsit

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have been reluctantly thinking this since Obama's ascendancy. Why should we go on making each other miserable?? My whole family is Liberal except me. If we get a conservative elected (a big IF) they and the rest of the left will hate and work as hard as they can to destroy him or her, just harming our beloved country all the more. How much more of this heart wrenching can we all take??? I have lived all my life in Blue Blue State Illinois, Obamaland, but would gladly move to Texas or anywhere I had to, IF we could get the Libs to leave.

    A two-state solution - an amicable divorce. The current stalemate is intolerable...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not to burst the happy bubble, but the Libs will NEVER let us go - who will pay for everything?????

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anon 9:22, Come to Texas anyway and be welcome. Our idiot in chief stepped into it again. He spoke at the pentagon and said that 'we have never been and never will be at war with islam'. I guess the Marines will have to change their anthem to delete that phrase 'shores of Tripoli'. Good luck if he dares to tell them that. This break up will be happening real fast with idiocy like that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Someone just attempted to post an extremely offensive comment. I spiked it, of course. MIND YOUR MANNERS, PEOPLE. This is a private blog. I don't mind dissenting opinions as long as they're expressed politely. But when someone is merely name-calling rather than expressing an opinion, it goes into the cyber roundfile. Got it?

    - Patrice

    ReplyDelete
  12. Loved your article, as usual. It really does make me wonder if there is any other alternative. I hope so, but I certainly don't have any other ideas. Let's let the liberals keep all the debt though.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you for that Patrice. I like to see a discussion of different opinions and points of view but on so many websites, blogs, forums, etc. I see way too much of descending into name calling and offensive nonsense. Give me some good intelligent conversation any day of the week. :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whenever a progressive is losing the debate (which happens often), they resort to name-calling and outright lying. They never concede a point and they never admit to being wrong.

    This is why they call Tea Party patriots racists and nazis. They can see the writing on the wall, but instead of learning to accept defeat gracefully and instead of learning from their mistakes, progressives pull out the race card. They are incapable of playing fair.

    Cloward & Pivan are their heroes, and Cloward & Pivan never play fair. They believe the ends justify the means.

    Anomymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  15. Is it just my memory playing tricks on me, or wasn't there a time not so many years ago when being 'liberal...or progressive as they're currently called...was associated with being open-minded, tolerant and compassionate?

    My how things have changed.

    A. McSp

    Patrice...the FireFox browser seems to be getting thru! YAAAY!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Irony is that, you are all admitting that the American Form of Government is an abject Failure, but don’t realise it. You see yourselves as restoring the Dream that the progressives have destroyed.

    But the whole ideal that this is a Government in which the people have consented to the Government we have, and that this Government only operates on the General Will of the people, was never Logical to begin with. Voting is not were we all get into a Giant Room, talk it over, and come to a consensus, its were fierce campaigns exist and people demonise heir opponents, whilst pushing ever stronger political ideologies used to distinguish one party from the other, and in which we are assured a choice between the two extremes only.

    We turn on each other, castigating those who voted differently or believe differently, and each thinking he has the right to do this, and if his numbers are right, the right to dominate others.

    This Culminates in social disintegration.

    It could never build Unity. The idea of a Unifying Republic is daft, as its designed to operate on competition, and we are always ruled by the Ambitious. The new Conservative States of America would soon after it was formed break into two parties, with one being to the left of the other, and both trying to “Out conservative” the other and soon the whole mess would be True again, a Divided Conservative States of America would Emerge. The same would of course be true of the Progressive States.

    Morality would continue to decline. Look at Glenn Beck. Unlike me he’s accepted as a Conservative, yet he’s perfectly OK with Same Sex Marriage. Some Conservatives are Pro Abortion. They’d invariably find their way into power.

    In a Republic we place all of our Emphasis on “The People” and in the end our own whims and desires, and those skilled at Rhetoric and Charisma will build off peoples hopes and fears, and get them to buy into their ideology, then use the power they gain over them to manipulate society for their own Agendas and to get real political power.

    We need to be rid of Politicians, and create a Social Order based around Property and Individual Rights, and Law not base don Popularity.

    We need something Decentralised, were most Government is Local, and the people of the Community have far more say over their local area, but not much say over the general Nation.

    We need a force outside of Popular ascent to unify us, and to act as Chief Judge in Temporal matters.

    We need an end of strife and division, not the creation of more strife and division, leading only to further Animosity and hatred. This is not how God would have us live.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Zarove, I think you raise some very valid points. I'm still not sure HOW you would accomplish your plan. I do see a continued
    divide even if we divided up the country.
    People can be conservative and end up having
    children who become progressives. So, you're right that there will always be a division.

    Are you proposing a theocracy? Or just what?

    And I also have this question: Glenn Beck is perfectly OK with same-sex marriage? I have never heard him say that and I've listened to him regularly for 3 years. I just cannot believe he, a Mormon, is OK with that. Are you sure?

    Interesting ideas, please elaborate on the plan.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am a Monarchist, so I am proposing a Monarchy. Once you get past the shock of this and tell me how I am a progressive liberal who wants big government , we can talk about the specifics. Im actually a small Government Conservative, and Monarchism is the ultimate Conservative Philosophy.

    I wrote in another post elsewhere about my general plan though. On this blog.

    You can also visit "The Mad Monarchist" blog. Its not my blog, but it will tell you what Monarchists believe in (Not the propaganda that links us to Obama loving Socialists) and I post there regularly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As for Glen Beck, sorry I forgot. I don’t watch his show a good deal of the time, but his Interview on another show ( I do not recall it) and statements in news articles said he had no problem with Same Sex marriage. It is not that he is personally for it, but being a Jeffersonian Libertarian he thinks that “So long as it neither Breaks my Leg nor Picks my pocket, what harm is it”? His position, as far as I understand it, is that he doesn’t so much Support Same Sex Marriage being made Legal, but has no problem with it as he see’s it as a matter of Individual Liberty and Choice. From his Perspective, he would have no Legal problems with it in America base don his idea of Individual Liberty.

    I’ll take the liberty in this post to link to the other Post.

    http://www.rural-revolution.com/2010/09/divorce-agreement.html#comments

    It by no means is comprehensive but, this is basically how I’d manage it. I don’t explain why I am a Monarchist or how I think it will benefit well, but these posts have to be Short by necessity. If you want I’ll let you Email me and we can discuss it in greater length. I warn you, I can be very wordy.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re: Beck.

    It was O’Reilly he told he was unconcerned with Same Sex Marriage. His reasoning was that the Government shouldn’t be involved anyway as it’s a Religious rite. He also saw it as simply individual Liberty in how one arranges ones own life.

    My own view is of course that it is a Civil Matter as much as it Is Spiritual and that you really can’t divide things in the clear “Religious” or “Secular” spheres as people may think you can.

    I would say this, if two men or two women wished to live together then so be it. But they should not win Governmental Sanction for their chosen lifestyle. Marriage out to be Governmentally Sanctioned and supported because it is a bedrock to Humanity, and all Civilisation depends on it.

    Marriage should be between one man and one woman, not two persons, of indiscriminate and irrelevant sex. You really can’t have Same Sex marriage anyway, as Marriage is natural, and only men and women can perform this. The Government merely recognises it, and gives it Legal Protection. But when the Government recognises something that can’t exists, the Government becomes Delusional.

    Then again the Governments of the world accept Abortion these days as no being Murder as the Foetus is only a Potential Human Being so delusion is the stock and trade of Modernity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Re: Beck.

    It was O’Reilly he told he was unconcerned with Same Sex Marriage. His reasoning was that the Government shouldn’t be involved anyway as it’s a Religious rite. He also saw it as simply individual Liberty in how one arranges ones own life.

    My own view is of course that it is a Civil Matter as much as it Is Spiritual and that you really can’t divide things in the clear “Religious” or “Secular” spheres as people may think you can.

    I would say this, if two men or two women wished to live together then so be it. But they should not win Governmental Sanction for their chosen lifestyle. Marriage out to be Governmentally Sanctioned and supported because it is a bedrock to Humanity, and all Civilisation depends on it.

    Marriage should be between one man and one woman, not two persons, of indiscriminate and irrelevant sex. You really can’t have Same Sex marriage anyway, as Marriage is natural, and only men and women can perform this. The Government merely recognises it, and gives it Legal Protection. But when the Government recognises something that can’t exists, the Government becomes Delusional.

    Then again the Governments of the world accept Abortion these days as no being Murder as the Foetus is only a Potential Human Being so delusion is the stock and trade of Modernity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Easy on the comments, Zarove. Most Americans aren't in favor of a monarchy, and eating up all my bandwidth trying to convince others of the validity of a monarchy is likely to be a waste of time. Please keep things short. If you want to post a link to your own blog where you can further expound your points, that's fine, but this isn't your blog.

    Thanks,
    Patrice

    ReplyDelete
  23. I type a lot on near everything I say. I am notoriously longwinded. Also, the majority of Americans doesn't interest me as the Majority simply follow what they are taught. You yourself think King George the Third was a Tyrant who was becoming an even greater Tyrant, despite the fact that the King had little real power in 1776 and the Tax Policies were created by Parliament.Thats not said to insult but, the point is most people do not sit and study and think these matters out. Elsewise why blame the Monarchy as a system when our Government actually taxes us to a far greater extent than did his? Where did that come from but an education that fixates on an ideal rather than objective fact? besides, if Majority rule was what drove me, how could I hope this position in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Zarove,
    Monarchy? LOL, that's an 11th century idea and quickly losing appeal everywhere - even in Britain. No thanks, I'll keep my flawed Republic. Monarchies are no more stable than any other form of government. History is filled with murder, deceit and betrayal in monarchies. It's just that they become a tradition and therefore hard to quit - like a very bad habit.

    As for Glenn Beck, he may feel that way. I've not heard him say it, but I'll not argue the point. I personally don't think marriage is for 2 women or 2 men or 1 man & 1 woman. I think marriage was "conceived" (pardon the pun) for the benefit of any children that the union might produce. A means to provide shelter, comfort, and security for children and not some means to make 2 people "happy." In times prior to the 20th century, and in many parts of the world still today, marriage was not about happiness. Marriage was more of a business deal. So I believe marriage would have a religious foundation with a civil recognition that these 2 people (1 man & 1 woman, since that's what it takes to produce children) are responsible for the children their union (might) bring forth. Marriage is for the benefit of the children, not the 2 adults entering into the agreement. With that definition, there is no way homosexual marriage would be legal, or moral.

    Are you a friend of quedula? I'm thinking there are a lot of people who dont' have a clue about American government, but think they do.

    Anonymous Patriot
    USA

    ReplyDelete
  25. I would bet that quedula is a damned nice lady. People without any moral compass can raise some serious hell. I would offer old Germany as one example.

    ReplyDelete
  26. You know, you could let me at least tell the bloke monarchy is not kept just for sentimental reasons. And its older than the 11th century. (so is Republicanism older.) And Republicanism isn’t exactly promoted based on reason over Tradition, but is itself reliant on Tradition. Republicanism is an American tradition most cling to in Americans out of veneration for the past, not out of reason.


    Heck, globally Republicanism is spreading now at the same rate as Socialism, and socialism is the main vehicle for it. Woodrow Wilson lead the Charge to democratise the world, and was an ardent socialist.

    Monarchy has advantages and can be logically defended, and is not just Tradition. Republicanism is also not just rational and self evidently good, but also carried by Tradition. And has its shortcomings.

    I also do not know Quedala, but do know much about the American Government. Hence why I support what I do.

    He can also email me if he likes.

    ReplyDelete