As Stu noted in response to yesterday's
Civil War post, (and which liklihood I had recognized in a
previous post) "Unlike our last
civil war, the lines are not geographical." Meaning a new
civil war would resemble one big Bloody
Kansas. Here's a workable solution.
The
Battle of New Orleans was an engagement fought between December 14,
1814 and January 18, 1815, constituting the final major battle of the
War of 1812, and the most one-sided battle of that war.
As you may remember from your 5th grade history
class,
back when American history was taught, the Battle of
New Orleans was fought after The Treaty of Ghent (Brit surrender) had
been signed. Why? How? Because there were no national
newspapers, no internet, no social media, and thus; no way to quickly spread the news (or gainsay the
president). FDR
similarly controlled what the press were allowed to print during WW II
(not to mention his isolating Muslims in detainment camps for the
duration).
So, what if there were no CNN, WaPost, New York Times, no Face Book,
nor any instant news source? If y'all can't see how that can come
about, I can. Legitimately, under the President's War Power
Act (citing seditious acts and attempts to overthrow the government). Tell President Trump
to
call me for full details,
You're welcome. Hey, we're already engaged in a great civil war, so
lets win it. USA! UAS! USA!
|
"So, what if there were no CNN, WaPost, New York Times, no Face Book, nor any instant news source? "
ReplyDeleteWhat if there WERE CNN, WaPost, New York Times, Face Book, or any other instant news source but nobody believed them?
In a population of biennials and snowflakes? Get real.
ReplyDeleteNo instant news source? So nothing to tell us that the traitors have surrendered and the civil war is over? I guess we'll just have to keep on killing them then. Why is that a bad thing?
ReplyDeleteLet's not get too carried away.
ReplyDelete