Civil War - Democrats have become a burden to this country's political system

[texan]

Civil War

A few days ago Jack Minzey sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written.

Jack passed away last 8 April 2018.

Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.

This is the last of his works:

Civil War
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can't settle the question through elections because they don't even agree that elections are how you decide who's in charge. That's the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election. We all know that. But it's not the first time they've done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn't really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There's a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don't accept the results of any election that they don't win. It means they don't believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections.

That's a civil war.

There's no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn't dissent. It's not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they're the worst thing that ever happened to the country. But then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don't win, what you want is a dictatorship. Your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it's inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time that a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can't scratch his own back without his say so, that's the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system that runs this country. The Democrat's system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. His power is unlimited. He's a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can't do anything. He isn't even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has 'discretion' to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn't even have the 'discretion' to reverse him. That's how the game is played That's how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn't yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren't even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn't allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission. But under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it's Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can't serve in it if you're not a member. If you haven't been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren't in the club. And Trump isn't in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren't in the club with him.

Now we're seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That's not a free country.

It's not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It's not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It's not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn't supposed to win did.

Have no doubt, we're in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.

[Agent Zero]

I've been waiting for this for days...thought Peter and Mr V were close, but of course @texan once again falls for the fake news!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/di...ern-civil-war/

Did a Professor Named Jack Minzey Write About ‘a Modern Civil War’?

An opinion piece arguing that the United States is in the midst of a Civil War was incorrectly attributed to a veteran and emeritus professor at Eastern Michigan University.

36

CLAIM

A military veteran and educator wrote an opinion piece arguing that the United States is in a modern Civil War.
RATING

<font color="#201C1F"><span style="font-family: -apple-system">
ORIGIN

In May 2018, an opinion piece arguing that the United States was in the midst of a modern Civil War went viral when it was shared as if it were written by Jack Minzey, a veteran and educator from Eastern Michigan University, who had passed away a few weeks previously.
The Jackson Press, for instance, introduced the essay with the following paragraphs:

A few days ago, Jack Minzey, sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written.
Jack went to be with the Lord, on Sunday, 8 April 2018.
Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein. His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded only by his intellectual ability.
This is the last of his works:

Similar introductions could be found on The Chattanoogan and a multitude of Facebook posts and e-mail chains.


Jack Minzey was truly an educator at Eastern Michigan University and he did pass away in April 2018. However, the essay attributed to Minzey is actually a shortened version of a speech delivered by Daniel Greenfield (a conservative author whose work can be found in publications such as FrontPageMag.com) at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention in January 2018:

This is a civil war.
There aren’t any soldiers marching on Charleston… or Myrtle Beach. Nobody’s getting shot in the streets. Except in Chicago… and Baltimore, Detroit and Washington D.C.
But that’s not a civil war. It’s just what happens when Democrats run a city into the ground. And then they dig a hole in the ground so they can bury it even deeper.
If you look deep enough into that great big Democrat hole, you might even see where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.
But it’s not guns that make a civil war. It’s politics.
Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.
That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The piece can be read in its entirety here. A video of Greenfield’s speech can be viewed below:

It is unclear how Minzey’s name was originally attached to this text. In similar instances, relatively unknown authors’ names are replaced by those of celebrities or well-established political pundits in order to give an opinion piece more credence, or to increase the chances that it will get shared. In this case, it seems like there was renewed interest in Minzey’s life and work following his passing, and someone took advantage of his death to bring attention to an unrelated piece.

[Agent Zero]

Can't believe you guys if all you ever do is lie...

[MisterVeritis]

Do you disagree with the piece?

I could have written it. I would have made one change. Oftentimes it is two or more parties who cannot agree.

A war is coming.

[MMC]

Can't believe you guys if all you ever do is lie...

Then there is Dennis Pragar.


America's Second Civil War - The Dennis Prager Show

www.dennisprager.com/americas-second-civil-war
The third significant difference between the First and Second Civil Wars is that in the Second Civil war, one side has been doing nearly all the fighting. That is how it has been able to take over schools — from elementary schools, to high schools, to universities — and indoctrinate America’s young people; how it has taken over nearly all the news …



Now what lame excuse can the leftness come up with?

[Agent Zero]

There may be a civil war, but it won't come from the left. It'll come from nutcases like those above...

[Agent Zero]

Then there is Dennis Pragar.


America's Second Civil War - The Dennis Prager Show

www.dennisprager.com/americas-second-civil-war
The third significant difference between the First and Second Civil Wars is that in the Second Civil war, one side has been doing nearly all the fighting. That is how it has been able to take over schools — from elementary schools, to high schools, to universities — and indoctrinate America’s young people; how it has taken over nearly all the news …



Now what lame excuse can the leftness come up with?

lol...

http://sdsucollegian.com/2017/11/15/...its-dangerous/

All it takes is the application of critical thinking to make the far-right unravel.
The plutocracy Trump panders to knows this well. One of those plutocrats decided to actively fight against the “liberal mainstream media,”and that man was Dennis Prager.
Thus, “Prager University,” or PragerU was born.
Prager University is just fake news done well.
However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. If you scroll through your Facebook feed, you will probably see one of their videos.
They feature a pleasant blue background with a reasonable-looking, mild-voiced narrator. Their videos’ titles usually pose questions like, and then always fall far right of center with their answer.
The videos’ issues range from one professing their
PragerU isn’t concerned with facts and often skirt around making any substantial claims, but they still put on academic airs to benefit the conservative platform.
To understand the videos, you must understand the man behind PragerU, and how, with enough money and slick graphics, any opinion can be made to seem reasonable.
It all started in 2011. Prager’s rise to prevalence in politics as a radio-host established him as an authority in discerning the moral character of political actors.
One certain billionaire with strange hair and a clementine-esque hue drew his attention: Donald Trump.
Believe it or not, he came out against Trump’s botched run in the 2012 election for president, releasing a column on the Jewish World Review on May 3, 2011 criticizing Trump’s speech, which was rife with profanity. In the piece Prager asserts, “the words render him unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president.”
However, five years later during the Republican primary when it was becoming increasingly apparent Trump would actually be the Republican nominee, Prager changed his tune.
Just before the general election, he took it upon himself to fund a social media campaign rivaling the Russian Facebook fake ad campaign, not in size, but in persuasiveness.
While Russia might have put out numerous ads bashing Clinton and leftist ideology, they were rather crude and overtly racist.
Most of the videos put out by PragerU were well done, using their panache to sell their views, which would have been considered radical had they portrayed them any differently.
In particular, their views on climate change are problematic.
Despite there being little to no scientific debate on whether or not climate change exists — spoiler: 90 to 100 percent of scientists believe it does according to a Dec. 14, 2016 article from Forbes — PragerU puts out videos insisting there is some matter of argument for the other side.
They say there are two groups of thought on the matter of manmade climate change, but neglect to say how small the group of scientists in dissent is.
Other videos, such as the aforementioned one on fossil fuels, present correlations as causations.
For instance, about a minute into the video on fossil fuels, the narrator presents an argument. Fossil fuel use has risen and so has access to clean water.
This must mean that the more we use fossil fuel, the cleaner our water gets.
The argument is wrong for a number of reasons.
While it is true fossil fuel use has risen, air and water quality in areas that have heightened their consumption of coal, natural gas and petroleum has gone down significantly.
The best case against this argument is China.
China has been modernizing their economy at an alarming rate and uses a lot of fossil fuels to power their cars and light up their homes, according to a Nov. 14 article from The Third Pole website.
As a consequence, their water quality has gone down significantly.
In fact, two-thirds of China’s rivers were deemed too toxic for even animals to drink, according to the South China Morning Post on Aug. 26.
However, the problem isn’t finding the data to disprove PragerU’s claims. Factual information is everywhere, and it isn’t hard to access.
Instead, it’s that those who watch and believe these videos don’t bother to check anywhere else.
Critical thinking has always been in short supply, but if people like those at PragerU get their way, the wrong information will make its way to media consumers before the facts do.
Nov. 29 — This article has been updated for accuracy.

[MMC]

lol...

http://sdsucollegian.com/2017/11/15/...its-dangerous/

All it takes is the application of critical thinking to make the far-right unravel.
The plutocracy Trump panders to knows this well. One of those plutocrats decided to actively fight against the “liberal mainstream media,”and that man was Dennis Prager.
Thus, “Prager University,” or PragerU was born.
Prager University is just fake news done well.
However, that doesn’t mean they aren’t dangerous. If you scroll through your Facebook feed, you will probably see one of their videos.
They feature a pleasant blue background with a reasonable-looking, mild-voiced narrator. Their videos’ titles usually pose questions like, and then always fall far right of center with their answer.
The videos’ issues range from one professing their
PragerU isn’t concerned with facts and often skirt around making any substantial claims, but they still put on academic airs to benefit the conservative platform.
To understand the videos, you must understand the man behind PragerU, and how, with enough money and slick graphics, any opinion can be made to seem reasonable.
It all started in 2011. Prager’s rise to prevalence in politics as a radio-host established him as an authority in discerning the moral character of political actors.
One certain billionaire with strange hair and a clementine-esque hue drew his attention: Donald Trump.
Believe it or not, he came out against Trump’s botched run in the 2012 election for president, releasing a column on the Jewish World Review on May 3, 2011 criticizing Trump’s speech, which was rife with profanity. In the piece Prager asserts, “the words render him unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president.”
However, five years later during the Republican primary when it was becoming increasingly apparent Trump would actually be the Republican nominee, Prager changed his tune.
Just before the general election, he took it upon himself to fund a social media campaign rivaling the Russian Facebook fake ad campaign, not in size, but in persuasiveness.
While Russia might have put out numerous ads bashing Clinton and leftist ideology, they were rather crude and overtly racist.
Most of the videos put out by PragerU were well done, using their panache to sell their views, which would have been considered radical had they portrayed them any differently.
In particular, their views on climate change are problematic.
Despite there being little to no scientific debate on whether or not climate change exists — spoiler: 90 to 100 percent of scientists believe it does according to a Dec. 14, 2016 article from Forbes — PragerU puts out videos insisting there is some matter of argument for the other side.
They say there are two groups of thought on the matter of manmade climate change, but neglect to say how small the group of scientists in dissent is.
Other videos, such as the aforementioned one on fossil fuels, present correlations as causations.
For instance, about a minute into the video on fossil fuels, the narrator presents an argument. Fossil fuel use has risen and so has access to clean water.
This must mean that the more we use fossil fuel, the cleaner our water gets.
The argument is wrong for a number of reasons.
While it is true fossil fuel use has risen, air and water quality in areas that have heightened their consumption of coal, natural gas and petroleum has gone down significantly.
The best case against this argument is China.
China has been modernizing their economy at an alarming rate and uses a lot of fossil fuels to power their cars and light up their homes, according to a Nov. 14 article from The Third Pole website.
As a consequence, their water quality has gone down significantly.
In fact, two-thirds of China’s rivers were deemed too toxic for even animals to drink, according to the South China Morning Post on Aug. 26.
However, the problem isn’t finding the data to disprove PragerU’s claims. Factual information is everywhere, and it isn’t hard to access.
Instead, it’s that those who watch and believe these videos don’t bother to check anywhere else.
Critical thinking has always been in short supply, but if people like those at PragerU get their way, the wrong information will make its way to media consumers before the facts do.
Nov. 29 — This article has been updated for accuracy.

LMAO.....yeah that was the Point. Pragar was against Trump. Until it was down to Hillary and Trump. Naturally when left with no option, he chose Trump over your ilk.

Just like the Blue Dog Democrats that put Trump in Office. They got tired of your kind $#@!ing up the country.


Now the only question that is left.....just how much Trembling and Cowardice will the left show in the next Civil War.



What about Kurt Schlicter?


Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too
townhall.com › columnists › Kurt Schlichter
That’s the ugly reality of war. And multiply the usual brutality of war by ten when it’s a civil war. There are two Civil War II scenarios, and the …


How about the American Thinker?

The second civil war is coming - American Thinker
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/the_second_civil_war...
Why have leftists declared all-out political war? It is because they must. The social left has suddenly and unexpectedly found itself at death's door, the door of permanent and irreversible loss of political power.


The Coming Second American Civil War? – The Roper …
https://theroperreportsite.wordpress...018/06/01/the-coming...
Jun 01, 2018 · With all the talk of a new Civil War in the air, this piece in the far-left New Yorker, which originally ran in August 2017 in the wake of Charlottesville, is worth revisiting on this Memorial Day weekend.


Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War? | The …
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a...
In March, Mines was one of several national-security experts whom Foreign Policy asked to evaluate the risks of a second civil war—with percentages. Mines concluded that the United States faces a sixty-per-cent chance of civil war over the next ten to fifteen years.


Are We on the Verge of Another Civil War? | The Nation
https://www.thenation.com/.../are-we-on-the-verge-of-another-civil-war
In that period contemporaries on both sides of the Atlantic talked about civil war, even an “American Civil War.” There was a recognition of the commonality of British settlers in North America, even Britons on both sides of the Atlantic.


Are rightwing pundits right that America is on the brink ...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/22/american-politics...
L ately on the right, a sense has been developing that the American project is heading for a profound, perhaps bloody crisis. More and more, we hear talk of “civil war” – some say we have already embarked on a “cold” one.

Even those overseas are picking up the chatter.

[MisterVeritis]

There may be a civil war, but it won't come from the left. It'll come from nutcases like those above...

Your side has already started. It becomes a civil war when the rest of us respond.

[texan]

I've been waiting for this for days...thought Peter and Mr V were close, but of course @texan once again falls for the fake news!

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/di...ern-civil-war/

Did a Professor Named Jack Minzey Write About ‘a Modern Civil War’?

An opinion piece arguing that the United States is in the midst of a Civil War was incorrectly attributed to a veteran and emeritus professor at Eastern Michigan University.

36

CLAIM

A military veteran and educator wrote an opinion piece arguing that the United States is in a modern Civil War.
RATING

<font color="#201C1F"><span style="font-family: -apple-system">
ORIGIN

In May 2018, an opinion piece arguing that the United States was in the midst of a modern Civil War went viral when it was shared as if it were written by Jack Minzey, a veteran and educator from Eastern Michigan University, who had passed away a few weeks previously.
The Jackson Press, for instance, introduced the essay with the following paragraphs:

A few days ago, Jack Minzey, sent what was to be the final chapter in the long line of books and treatises which he had written.
Jack went to be with the Lord, on Sunday, 8 April 2018.
Professionally, Jack was head of the Department of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein. His interest in Conservative Politics was exceeded only by his intellectual ability.
This is the last of his works:

Similar introductions could be found on The Chattanoogan and a multitude of Facebook posts and e-mail chains.


Jack Minzey was truly an educator at Eastern Michigan University and he did pass away in April 2018. However, the essay attributed to Minzey is actually a shortened version of a speech delivered by Daniel Greenfield (a conservative author whose work can be found in publications such as FrontPageMag.com) at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention in January 2018:

This is a civil war.
There aren’t any soldiers marching on Charleston… or Myrtle Beach. Nobody’s getting shot in the streets. Except in Chicago… and Baltimore, Detroit and Washington D.C.
But that’s not a civil war. It’s just what happens when Democrats run a city into the ground. And then they dig a hole in the ground so they can bury it even deeper.
If you look deep enough into that great big Democrat hole, you might even see where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.
But it’s not guns that make a civil war. It’s politics.
Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.
How do civil wars happen?
Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge.
That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.

The piece can be read in its entirety here. A video of Greenfield’s speech can be viewed below:

It is unclear how Minzey’s name was originally attached to this text. In similar instances, relatively unknown authors’ names are replaced by those of celebrities or well-established political pundits in order to give an opinion piece more credence, or to increase the chances that it will get shared. In this case, it seems like there was renewed interest in Minzey’s life and work following his passing, and someone took advantage of his death to bring attention to an unrelated piece.

If the guy is fictitious sorry bout that, I never post the reactionary crap I see here. But nice out of context zinger post.

Now down to business:

First of all you deflect like a profession liberal. It was just sent to me to read. I had no reason to confirm the author because the message is correct. You b!tches whine like stuck pigs when you get beat. Grow up for once. That is what this is about!