What Does a "Cold" Civil War Look Like?

This was originally written by Jack Minzey and adapted with a few revisions by me.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Have you ever wondered... 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 you think the odds are of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president? What does it 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 in a "cold" civil war. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice by some nutcase. Admit it. You know the Democrats have rejected our system of government and that's why they're acting as they are today. Here's a prime example on the issue of immigration.

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 by convincing enough voters that the party in power isn't doing it right. 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 the judge's say so, that's the "cold" civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that's not the system running this country today. 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. Remember how A.G. Holder dealt with Arizona? 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. In fact, Obama made it difficult to understand which one was safe to use. 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 shifts power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. Remember Lois Lerner and the IRS? 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 too.

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, like Mueller's already done to Mannifort and Flynn. 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 text about taking out an 'insurance policy' against Trump winning the election. It's not a free country when Obama officials like Samantha Power 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 a conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.

The important question remains... what will it take to cause the shift from a "cold" civil war, to a real one?

Whatever Happened With the Anti-Trust Laws?

The real estate collapse of 2008 is fresh enough in our minds to understand and remember the impact it had on our lives.

Over the past decade I've made a point to research and understand at a more detailed level the causes which created that situation. Most of the public has no, to very little, understanding of just how far back events go which contributed to it. Sure, they may have seen the movie "The Big Short" which touches on one of the many facets in the vast web that were part of an eventual trigger point.

In the aftermath of the months which began as Bush's administration came to an end, and Obama's came into power, Congress engaged in creating new laws known as the Dodd-Frank bill which was easily passed in a Democrat controlled Congress in the first two years of Obama's administration.

The media claimed in their reports that it was designed to rectify many of the banking abuses which partially contributed to the circumstances which led up to that devistating point.

However, today, one of our former president's close advisors has released an opinion article which makes claims contrary to what most of us believe that bill supposedly corrected banking practices which contributed to that collapse. 

According to Dick Morris it didn't do any such thing. In fact, it did the opposite. He asserts, and from what I understand from my research is correct, it allowed for the larger mega-banks to absorb the smaller local community banks.

I urge my readers to read his opinion article here to understand more clearly why he makes his assertion, as several others are doing, and why it seems obvious that instead the Anti-Trust laws of just over a hundred years ago are being ignored today. I believe, it is because our elected "leaders" are beholden to, and corrupted by, the very corporate control which keeps them in office; donations to their campaigns for re-election.

The more important issue, in my opinion is, given the reports I've studied - here's one, for example - and the indicators from a variety of financial experts, how much time do we have under the current more fragile economic circumstances we witness going on now before another collapse hits? Some are claiming the next economic collapse could be much worse. After all, we are currently witnessing many, if not more, of the very same circumstances in the housing market which were happening back in 2003 to 2007.

3.5 Million Ghost Voters?

For many years the battle has been going on for cleaning up the voter registration records across the country.

Conservatives assert that too many records are fraught with errors and bogus people that needs to be expunged in order to have a fair and just system of elections. Liberals, on the other hand, assert that they are defending "the people's right to vote" by resisting any attempt to purge voter registration records because it could potentially deny someone that right.

According to Dick Morris's latest video it is the judicial system of our government - the courts - which is perpetuating the high likelyhood of voter fraud.

I ask... Is it not the courts who are repeatedly resisting the president through rulings in Trump's attempt to use the very same tool - executive order - in order to rectify some of the actions which the previous president himself took that has thrown a proverbial "wrench" into the machinery of government's law and order?

Then, it should be obvious to any thinking individual to conclude that during the previous administration, a plethora of key positions in the courts were placed as a way to ensure that policies implemented by Pres. Obama were protected from the future potential of being erased by an opositional administration such as Pres. Trump's. 
 
Before Obama was elected, liberal judges controlled just one out of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals. By the time Obama left office, liberal judges controlled nine of the 13 circuits.

It's long been my suspicion that back in the spring presidential campaign of 2008, Sen. Obama and Hillary Clinton met at a secret meeting to negotiate a political arrangement between them which would enhance the progressive agenda.

I conjecture that the meeting's discussion went something like this...

O: Hillary, I recognize that you are a formidible opponent in this race, but you must understand that I have connections in very high places which are backing me who will see to it that I will be the next president-elect.

H: Well, Barrack, I too have many connections in high places as well as  my gender to launch me into the White House. After all, I've been there, done that.

O: I'm more concerned about keeping the Democrat Party unified and strong, so that we can carry out our long term agenda of a globally dependent economy and cooperation with the E.U. to deal with the threat of China's attempt to dominate the game.

H: Well, you do have a good point. We need to remain the dominant player in economics to stave off a global collapse with all the spending we're doing to usher in global socialism.

O: I have a proposal I believe you'll find attractive. Back off of your attacks on me for now. In the meantime, run for the Senate position in New York where it will be easy for you to win, and once I'm President I'll appoint you Secretary of State once you have a term or two under your belt. After all, your only credentials so far is being the First Lady to the first President to get a blow job under the Resolute desk from Monica.

H: Hey, hey! Watch it Barrack, he's still my husband for political purposes... even if we don't have sex any more. That's why he's gone after all those women.

O: Then, after I've served a second term, you can take over in full force to win the White House and carry the mantle of socialism to its full glory with the 3.5 million ghost voters we have backing us. I will set things in motion during my terms in office for you to succeed with ease, and the true cause of our party will be secure.

H: Well, when you put it that way, I don't see how I can refuse. It's a deal!

That's It... Misery for Everyone!

It's finally come to logger heads. Differing ideologies are impacting everyone. Everyone, that is, who are Starbucks devotees.

The Starbucks corporate policies are now affecting those who actually go to local coffee shops to purchase their drinks and, for some, who spend any time in the store relaxing and enjoying their  coffee beverage. 

Wanting to cater to the socialist trends of today, they are conflicted with whether they are a place that is for patrons, or as a public venue that allows non-patrons to spoil the atmosphere for patrons. (This is a prime microcosmic example of how socialist policies ruin the experience for everyone.)

For those readers who still aren't aware of the latest development on Starbuck's use policy, read this article for further details.

I predict that frequent Starbucks patrons will either use the drive-thru window only, or find another coffee vendor altogether for their "daily fix". I'll admit, I love my lattes too, but I quit patronizing this coffee mega corporation years ago due to their other policies.

Yes... "The times they are a changin' "

As a student growing up in public school during the sixties, this song by Bob Dylan comes quickly to mind when I see articles like these from ShiftWA.org today:

State Rep. Jim Walsh (R-Aberdeen) will propose legislation allowing trained K-12 teachers to carry firearms at school. “If an individual school district wanted to let its teachers concealed carry, the law would simply allow the option,” he said. Walsh also proposes adding school resource officers to every school. (Longview Daily News)

and...

State Rep. Matt Shea (R-Spokane Valley) led the 51st State Rally last weekend, saying that the idea to split Washington into two states is not new. Shea’s Liberty State would be formed from all counties east of the Cascades. “Downtown Seattle has had enough of us, too. We get in the way of their socialist plans,” he said. (Sunnyside Daily Sun News)

Who knows how long it will take before either of these issues gain any real momentum, but, since the second item has been tried before and given the current more severe climate of differences between eastern and western Washington, I'd give it a greater chance of generating any real chance of going anywhere. 

After all, it is just news at this point.

What Liberals Don't Understand About Race

We've seen lately a lot about Kanye West and Candice Ownes making the news about their support for President Trump's policies and alignment about with certain concepts regarding one's personal character.

Now, Candice Ownes has contributed to Prager U's video series on conservative concepts regarding what is normally referred to as the "race card" but is called the "Black Card" in this video presentation.

It clarifies the concepts which Martin Luther King, Jr. promoted when he was still alive working to forward equal treatment for African-Americans in the 1960s.

Just today, I saw a little sign in a music classroom where I was substitute teaching for the afternoon that caught my attention because I had always struggled with how to explain the difference to my students while teaching full-time about "fairness".

It stated succinctly, "Fairness is not that everyone deserves the same things. Fairness is that everyone deserves the same opportunity to achieve success for themself."

This is why M.L.K., Jr. said in his speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, "...we should not judge a man by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character."

The Silent, Yet Looming, Threat

Geologists who focus on the volcanoes of the west coast and

Pacific Rim are expressing heightened concern about 

Hawaii's latest activity. 

 

They're concerned because it could have implications for the 

volcanoes which run - like a string of pearls - along the 

western coastal states from Northern California to the 

Canadian border.

 

But the article linked above, while informative in certain 

respects, is also misleading to those who read it, but have

no familiarity to the region.

How? First, the article references "Spokane, WA," which is hundreds of miles to the east side, and far away from the Cascade Mountains. The picture of Mt. Rainier accompanying the article shows it framed by the bridge in Tacoma over the Thea Foss Waterway.

It should have referenced, "Tacoma, WA" or "Seattle, WA,” 

as these two cities, as mentioned later in the article, are 

much more threatened by a possible eruption from the two 

closest volcanoes.

I've lived in the Northwest for nearly 35 years now, and I 

know the geography fairly well.

 

In my early years here I took a course at the University of 

Washington in Geology; more specifically, volcanoes and the 

earth's crustal movement known as tectonic plate activity 

during the same period as the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 

1980.

 

Part of that research included David Johnston's masters 

thesis on a volcano in Alaska. Johnston was killed while 

within the vicinity of Mt. St. Helens' blast zone.

Only a few years later, I climbed to the top of both Mt. Baker 

and Mt. Rainier and learned a considerable bit more about 

the volcanic threat of the Pacific Coast volcanoes. While 

standing on its summit of Mt. Rainier, one could see Mt. 

Baker to the north and the volcanoes of Mt. Adams, Mt.St. 

Helens, and Mt. Hood to the south.

Having lived, driven and hiked/backpacked around the 

greater Puget Sound Region, I've often wondered just how 

effective the various communities which lie within eye sight 

of the volcanoes would be, should one of them erupt. 

Anyone who knows the natural geography of the area 

realizes that the valleys which snake out in all directions 

from the base of a volcano were created in the distant past 

by former eruptions and the resulting massive lahars, which 

travel downhill and out to the lower elevations, carving them 

out even more. 

 

Yet even with this knowledge, there have been many 

communities developed over the years which are on the 

valley floors of many of the paths a lahar would take. 
Any lahar - a pyroclastic flow sweeping down through the 

valleys which surround every volcano - contains a 

combination of melted glacier ice, ash and rock that turns 

into a massive moving lake of viscous, hot "cement" with the 

front of that flow essentially being a huge wall that sweeps 

clean the valley it flows through.

 

Nothing can stop it and everything in its path is destroyed 

and often buried several feet deep in scalding hot mud and 

boulders (some larger than houses). One needs only to 

search for footage of this on YouTube to see lahars from Mt. 

St. Helens flowing down the Toutle and Cowlitz Rivers.

The article claims - as do many of the communities which 

reside in the valley carved out by previous massive 

eruptions – that there are plans in place to evacuate their 

citizenry to higher ground and that they regularly practice the 

drill to evacuate. This is ludicrous. The actual time Orting, for 

instance, would actually have to evacuate, compared to the 

time they take for their evacuation drill, would be 

considerably longer.

 

With the increased housing development which has 

occurred over recent decades, and my familiarity with the 

limited roads and highways which connect to higher ground 

out of the valleys to get away from an oncoming lahar flow, 

it's obvious to me that the resulting devastation will be much 

worse than they believe will occur, and that many thousands 

– perhaps tens of thousands - will perish.

 

This fact is precisely why, when buying my house, I 

deliberately chose a property on a hill - roughly 500 to 800 

feet high- above the nearby area where a lahar will 

ultimately empty its contents; hot water, ash, boulders, and 

anything in its path, as it flows down the valley on its way to 

Puget Sound … which is exactly what happened in the past, 

well before there was any modern development.

 

Yet, hundreds of thousands of people go about their daily 

lives, working and living in their homes in the very path 

which has the potential to sweep clean any and all in the 

lahar's way.

 

God forbid that it ever happens... but if it does, we'll have 

hell to pay. And we'll have only ourselves to blame.