Quote of the day—Ray Starman

I believe it is no longer hyperbole to say the United States may very well be on the road to a Second Civil War. This time it won’t be North vs. South, but Left vs. Right, Marxism vs. American Nationalism, Lunacy vs. Sanity, Tyranny vs. Liberty.

Sadly, there will be more violence, more vandalism and more bloodshed on both sides. There will be more confrontations for one reason and one reason only, the left wants it.

The left wants a Civil War. They very well may get it.

Ray Starman
August 15, 2017
The Left is Marching the Nation Towards Civil War
[While I’m about 90% certain they want a civil war I’m not convinced they will get it.

The pattern I see follows that of Germany in the 1930’s. The Nazi party gained political power legally until it almost had control. Then as its grasp on power started to fade it dramatically stepped up the violence and seized power. Had the government been better about stopping the street thugs the Nazi’s would not have been able to up the violence and seize power.

There have been many recent cases, including Portland, Berkley, and Charlottesville where the police did essentially nothing. This only encourages the political left. If the police in this country do there jobs and the thugs end up in jail, seriously injured, or dead the violence will decrease and we will avoid a civil war.

The police have been militarizing for decades now. It’s time for them to use some of that equipment and training and prevent another civil war. It is far better to risk injuring and/or killing a few hundred thugs now than to go through a civil war in the following years.—Joe]


10 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Ray Starman

  1. It’s true that the police should do its job, and that’s what is needed. The trouble arises when the police is under orders not to do its job. This has happened periodically for a long time; consider the LA riots for example, the ones that Robert Avrech documented so eloquently in “Jew without a gun”. Sometimes this inaction is excused with the claim that it is needed for the police’s safety, as if personal safety were part of their job description. Yes, avoiding unnecessary risks is a valid goal, but when doing the things that are the whole purpose of policing, the risks associated with that are part of the job and are not to be avoided.

    • Paul,
      you make the common mistake of believing that the police, in general, have some sort of personal mandate to be a “righteous force for good” in the US. Many years ago, that might have been a more widespread creed, but you will be hard pressed to find that mentality in measurable quantity today. The current mantra is “officer safety”, and nothing is allowed to interfere with that.

      When it comes to proactive situations, such as riots, they will not respond without overwhelming force and numbers. Since TPTB will not authorize that, it won’t happen. Study the Rodney King LA riots, and remember that that was 25 years ago, and the political situation is worse now. If that occurred now, the entire LA area would have burned to the ground. The police ended up only protecting official locations and rich areas, for the most part. They won’t even bother with that nowadays. Kiss it goodby. The force will mostly be AWOL, home protecting their families.

      • I think this is another example of the difference between the cops on the beat, who typically take their calling seriously — and the political animals that run the departments, who take their orders from left wing politicians and spout the PC jargon. This is why the media can quote police chiefs for victim disarmament propaganda, something that the vast majority of real cops oppose.

        • “…cops on the beat, who typically take their calling seriously…”

          Not any more. As I stated, “officer safety” trumps that. Not entirely due to attitude changes, but also due to them realizing that their bosses will throw them under the bus without a second thought.

          Nowadays, they do nothing without backup. Gone are the days where an officer was expected to handle problems without calling for a large entourage. The drawback to the group coverage is they are much more likely to end up shooting for bogus reasons, and they will do this as a group. Standing among a gang of cops with their fingers on triggers, obviously looking for an excuse to fire, is quite nerve-wracking, let me tell you.

  2. This makes sense, ergo, lets not do that.

    Btw, what does the Mentat in your office think about all this?

  3. If the only solution we can come up with is using the hyper-militarized police to “crack down” on political violence, we are already lost. I shudder to think what the police would do after they had successfully re-established “order” with the current crop of left/right agitators. I doubt they will meekly return to their police stations and then voluntarily step aside for the next round of political debate……

    We are not Weimar Germany. The rioting loonies we see here today are an extremely small percentage of the population, who are trying to capitalize on media attention. Don’t use the failed processes from pre-war Germany as a solution for the US.

  4. In times like these, I always like to look around and see what is going on in the background while the attention-whoring crazies are running through the streets.

    These people, from Pelosi to that guy shot in the nuts with a pepperball, are a geek show in a small town carnival.

    Here in my town, Austin, Texas, there is a building boom going on. THAT is important. These goobers on the news are NOT.

  5. As was the case in the 1960s, the rioting today is mostly organized by a few people or organizations. Crack down on them and you’ve gotten to the heart of the matter. Anything else is a worthless proxy “war”, solving nothing.

    Our universities are teaching “Critical Theory” (anti-American theory), the left media are backing it up with 24/7 agitprop, and the Soros “network of associations” helps provide the foot soldiers and “community organizing”, though Obama has joined in on the latter. Add in the Clintons, the Bloombergs, and their cronies, and a few of the more radical Marxist Democrats in Congress and you’ve got the most of the problem. The foreign influences will always be here, but they can be dealt with too.

    The main point is, going after the clueless pawns is a waste of time. Cut off the head instead.

    Removing all subsidies (and all federal and international influence) from education would go a long way. That’s the big one, and so we should have a constitutional amendment, or an addendum to the first amendment;

    “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of education, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” At that point the anti-American colleges, etc. would begin to die on the vine.

    No one will have the courage to do any of that, at least not in the foreseeable future. Therefore the problem will get worse.

    Also it must be remembered that we deal not with flesh and blood, but with principalities, and with corruption in high places. This is mostly a spiritual problem, therefore nothing so “Earthly” (material) as mere politics or law can ever solve it. Our constitution is only for a moral and religious (though one should question the meaning of the latter) people, and it will not work for any other.

    • You don’t need another amendment. All that’s needed is to enforce Article 1 Section 8. But that, along with much else in the Constitution, is violated every day by nearly all government workers in the Federal government (all 3 branches, including every single employee of the unconstitutional “independent agencies”).

Comments are closed.