HOW CLOSE IS THE US TO A CIVIL WAR? HISTORY SPEAKS!

➡ The Common Sense Show is a popular program that discusses various topics, including the possibility of a civil war, the importance of de-escalation, and the potential of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. The host emphasizes the need for unbiased media coverage and criticizes both left and right-leaning outlets for their divisive tactics. He also expresses concern over weakened institutions, particularly the judicial system, and encourages personal investment in gold, silver, and cryptocurrencies as a safeguard against economic instability.
➡ The article discusses concerns about weakening institutions, abandonment of duty, and increasing violence, particularly in the context of the Supreme Court and political responsibility. It highlights instances of potential incitement of violence and lack of transparency in government. The author suggests that while the U.S. is not currently on the brink of a civil war, the country is closer to it than it was five years ago due to growing polarization. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of de-escalation and respectful dialogue, even when disagreements arise.
➡ Dave Hodges, from the Common Sense Show, emphasizes the importance of addressing and resolving the divisions in our country. He believes that if these issues aren’t dealt with, it could lead to irreversible consequences.

Hello, America! And to our friends around the world, welcome to the Common Sense Show. We are the show that is freeing America. One in slave. Mind at a time. Thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate you. Check out our TV show at the commonsenseshow.tv. It’s really cool. People love the hiding in plain sight series that we’ve nicknamed Hips. And got all kinds of cool stuff going up there this afternoon. Three new additions. Maybe five. I think it’s five. Anyway. It’s great stuff. People love it. The commonsenseshow.tv. And we’re going to really expand that section because it’s a good mental health break for me because it’s fun.

It is informative and it is relevant. But it’s fun. This stuff we’re going to give you is serious. I’m hearing constantly. Civil War. Civil War. Civil War. The Civil War movie I saw that they put out what was it a year ago was horrendous. It wasn’t historically accurate. It wasn’t practical. It didn’t follow perceived patterns that lead to Civil War. It was just a conglomeration of scenes mixed in with some violence. But I do share the concern of some of my colleagues that we are approaching a Civil War. But there’s also some guardrails that we need to look at too.

So what I’m going to do is I’m going to walk you through the five generally agreed upon preconditions for a Civil War. And then we’re going to look at the guardrails. And then we’re going to talk frankly about where we’re at. And more importantly what we should be doing. And I’m going to just use this word right out here before we get into this very deeply. De-escalation. And it can be done on a one to one personal basis. It can be done on social media. And it doesn’t mean we ignore problems. And we don’t call people or situations out when they need it.

But we don’t deliberately look to antagonize. And now I’m going to come back to that quite often. Hey we are brought to you by My Digital Money. You know and I think you believe that the dollar is in trouble. Now can Trump rescue it? Well the stable coin is a move towards trying to do that. I’m not a big stable coin fan. But the jury’s still out. I’m still evaluating. But I will tell you what I’m not evaluating. Gold, silver and gold. And crypto. And you need to be in all three if you have any discretionary income.

Because you don’t want to put all your eggs in one basket. Particularly the bank. And particularly your retirement. We’ve covered this now. We covered it yesterday. UCC. Section 8. Right? Part 5. Banks can take your money. If there is any insolvency anywhere along in that banking chain. And Dodd-Frank 2010 says that when you put your money or have your retirement associated with the bank. It’s theirs and they can do what they want. So you’re covered there twice. I think it’s unconstitutional. Is there anything? But nonetheless that’s the law. So what about the Bitcoin? What about the crypto? People are going to get rich off this.

And a year we went from low 60s to 111,000. But that’s just the beginning. With stable coin coming on and Trump showing an affinity for crypto and Bitcoin. Because I think he sees the need to have an alternative to the dollar. This thing is going to explode. And experts are saying 300,000. In a few years to five years it could be a million. This is the time to jump on board. But you got to choose a reputable company. You don’t want to jump in bed with FTX. We went through that nonsense. And it really ruined the reputation of Bitcoin.

In which most of the retailers in Bitcoin are reputable businesses. Run by reputable people. Unfortunately guilt by association. But that’s dying off now. Now who do I look at as one of the most, if not the most reputable? That would be the people at my digital money. And by the way, if you make a killing and you need to get liquid for whatever reason, you want to buy a car, you want to pay off your house, whatever would be, they buy it back from you. They offer cold storage. It’s military grade insecurity. They don’t mix business like FTX did with some personal assets that’s yours.

They don’t do that. Totally separate. They follow the law to the hilt. How do you get ahold of my digital money for a no obligation conversation? Telling them I told you to call. Well first just go to the website and look them over. My digital money dot com. My digital money dot com is where you go. Now I know some of you are saying I want to jump on this now. I don’t want to go through a website. I want to talk to somebody. Okay, that’s easy to do. 833-636-2008. Take those last four digits or an accident.

If you know your history, you know what I’m talking about. That’s 833-636-2008. It’s who I use. It’s who I hope you’ll use. My digital money dot com is the website. Alright, let’s go through these five preconditions for civil war and then look at guardrails and what history says about guardrails and these five things combined. Let’s see if we can’t see where America is at historically speaking. Number one predictor. Entrenched polarization. We even have paid protesters that are doing outrageous things endangering the lives of law enforcement. Whether you agree they’re a mission or not. You don’t attack law enforcement.

You handle the matter in the courts. That’s what a civilized society does. Okay, number two. Divisive press coverage. No, it’s funny. MSNBC and CNN are going through an absolute bloodbath with layoffs. And from my money, my perspective, my opinion, now this is my opinion. I’m not going to promote this as absolute gospel fact. But from my opinion, MSNBC and CNN hopelessly biased to the left. Hopelessly unobjective. They lack total objectivity. They have one agenda and it’s and really the term Trump derangement syndrome comes up. TDS. There’s no such disorder in the mental health handbook called DSM.

But I understand what they’re talking about and there is an obsession with being divisive from the left. Now, I’m going to say on the right and I’m not a big believer in Fox. I look at them and it’s not that they don’t have some good people. I think I have some great people there. But the network is controlled. The Murdoch brothers. We know who their major asset manager is. Okay, they’re not coming to you from a conservative position. But let’s assume that you’ve bought into that model. Yes, they are totally biased for Donald Trump. And they leave out some issues.

Okay, they leave out some issues. Okay, they leave out some issues. Oh, you want an example? Be happy to. The Epstein list needs to be released. I don’t care who’s on it. I don’t care. Fox News does not have that position. My feeling is if we don’t defend our most vulnerable citizens, the elderly, the handicapped, and most importantly, the youth. We’re not willing to protect our children and what good are we as a civilization. That’s how you judge the merit of a civilization. And you don’t get to make exceptions because some famous person or some important person is on the list.

Then they might suffer reputation damage or legal consequences. I don’t care. Fox News will never say that. They’re playing their role, right? They’re straight to the hill. So, the divisive press coverage does come from both sides. The right constantly attacks the left. They make fun of their body shapes. Okay, make fun of me guys. I make fun of myself. That’s okay. I hear this. You watch Gutfeld. It’s not important. I want issues when we talk about the news. I don’t want insults because of someone’s appearance. Okay, it gets old. And that’s divisive. So, the right and the left both do it.

Who does it more? I think unquestionably, it’s the left. Number three, weakened institutions. There’s a deliberate attempt to make that happen right now. Leftist federal district judges making rulings outside their district and many of the rulings are clearly unconstitutional and violate things like article four, president’s ability to control what happens with the border and immigration article two. Control over the executive branch. This is a real issue for me. This is a real issue. Now, the Supreme Court has spoken. Hello, federal district court judges. You can’t do unconstitutional things and we’ll correct you if you do, but you also can’t rule outside your jurisdiction, your district.

And they’re continuing to do it. Where’s the legal consequence? Well, there is a legal consequence. This gets into the weakened institutions argument. Congress has the ability to defund any one of these judges on a majority vote or they could impeach them on a majority vote. Doesn’t take 60 votes. No super majority needed. Why aren’t they doing it? These judges like Boseberg clearly violating the law. Clearly violating the Supreme Court. Why aren’t they being dealt with? Weakened institution. Congress loves to have investigations and you notice how they’re never significant per blocks. That’s called a weakened institution.

And the Supreme Court has issued rulings and the federal district court judges are still violating the Supreme Court ruling weakened institution. And some of this was done deliberately. Oh, in the Biden administration. Right. And the Roe v. Wade issue came up with abortion and people doesn’t matter what your position is. That’s not what we’re debating here. What I’m talking about is the legality of protesting and trespassing on Supreme Court judges land. You’re not even allowed to protest in front of their house. It’s illegal. It’s a federal crime. But what did Merrick Garland say? Well, they have the right to free speech.

That was a violation of law. That’s weakening the institution of the Supreme Court. So on the second point, of leading to a civil war, I would have to say this is in the affirmative and it’s on the side saying it points in this direction. Number four, abandonment of duty, forsaking responsibility, the aforementioned Epstein files, DOJ, absolutely. Pam Bondi’s probably following orders from Trump. Trump’s guilty of it. Let’s call him out. As I said, that’s an abandonment of duty. The Department of Justice should be transparent to all. Now, the only time you’re not transparent, innocent before proven guilty.

Okay. And then the second thing is, if you have child victims, you don’t display their identities or their faces or any identifying criteria. Plain and simple. Outside that, yeah, we need transparency. But what we have is an abandonment of political responsibility. Okay. You go back to other things. People point to the Hillary Clinton bleaching computer stuff. Pre-election James Comey wouldn’t prosecute. Some people say that’s an example of what you’re talking about, Dave. Yeah, but she’s not alone. There are so many instances. I have pointed out where Merrick Garland’s been guilty of this with regard to school curriculum and enforcement and its conflicts of interest that he and his family had.

I’ve pointed that out and it’s documented. It’s not even open for discussion. That’s an abandonment of responsibility for the duty of your branch of government. I just shake my head at this. Now, the fifth one, and this is where it turns ugly. Legitimizing violence. I’ve heard some things said, uh, Representative Garcia from Texas made the comment, well, this is a fight and we needed to bring the weapons to the fight. Now, you might be able to really stretch and I’m telling you, it’s a stretch to say, well, he was only speaking metaphorically. I could understand if it was metaphorical, but there should be some back reference to the fact that we’re not talking about shooting people or harming people or beating people.

We’re, we’re just talking euphemistically, the weapons of words, the weapons of lawsuits. That’s perfectly fine, but that’s not how I took it. And then we all, we heard, uh, Akeem Jeffries saying that we’re going to demask those people from ICE. Okay. Let me explain the reality. And I’ve said this before in Mexico where the cartel is active, if you look at the Mexican soldiers, you look at the federal rallies and the local police, they wear masks. Why? Because they don’t want to be doxed because they can be dealt with in their homes. They don’t want their families to be the victim of violence because the agents or representatives of law enforcement have been identified.

That’s why they wear the masks. And you’ve got cartel interests at work in many of these situations involving ICE. It’s been part of the legal procedure. Oh, they’ve arrested the guy from MS-13. Oh, they arrested a guy from the Sinaloa or the CJNG. Okay. We’ve heard that constantly. And that’s a concern, but Akeem Jeffries wants to expose these people to danger. To me, that’s inciting violence. It’s opening the door for violence against law enforcement. If ICE or any other law enforcement agency is breaking the law, you sue them, goes to court. And there’s plenty of private advocacy groups that’ll do that, like the ACLU.

You don’t have to be a rich private citizen to get justice. These personal private interest groups will take the case and the cause. So you don’t need to resort to this, but I am growing, growing concerned. And you’ve got other people, mostly Democrats, are threatening violence. Well, we just need to go up and slap them upside the head. I’ve heard that a couple of times. Okay. To me, that’s euphemistically. I’ve said that about stupid people I know. And I’m not being serious. But I think when you’re in a position of responsibility, dealing with the public and you’re an elected leader, you need to be really careful about the words you speak and make sure that you’re not giving the covert or overt message that violence is an acceptable framework for solving disputes.

And the violence part is scary. What bothers me about leftist media and these leftist politicians, we have seen a police officer in Alvarado, Texas respond to a raid upon an ICE detention facility and he was shot in the neck. I have not heard the outrage. This is a policeman who just called to come quell a disturbance. He’s probably not entirely sure what he’s walking into, gets out of his car and he’s shot in the neck and could have easily died. I don’t know about you, but I heard when I hear about law enforcement agents that are killed on the line of duty.

Cause they don’t go home to their kids. They don’t go home to their family and they’re out there every day, taking chances for you and me. We get irritated cause they write his tickets, but realize what they do. But I’m not hearing that sentiment from a lot of politicians and most of them are on the left. If we can’t respect law enforcement in this country and advocate for their safety, as long as they’re not breaking the rules. And if they’re breaking the rules, you don’t hurt them, you sue them. But what good are we as a civilization? Now, okay.

Those are the five predictors. On number five, we’re becoming increasingly violent. There’s no question. You just look at what happened in LA. Continuing guardrails. History shows that there is not a civil war in a strong Republic form of democracy, that civil wars are more likely to occur when someone is transitioning from Republic form of democracy to a dictatorship. That’s your danger point. But it’s never happened in a major nation like ours or Western nations in the G7 to the G20. I think Canada is much more at risk for this than the U.S. than we are for reasons we’re not going to get into right now.

Have we made that transition under Biden? We did some. We did some. He came out in his September 1st speech of what was it? 2023 and said, if you’re America first or MAGA, you’re the enemy. You’re a domestic terrorist. That’s inflammatory speech spoken like a dictator. That’s scary. Do I think we’re headed towards civil war? Not at this time. Part of the reason too, and here’s another guardrail. We do have 27% of our country is gauged to be somewhat malnourished. We don’t have widespread famine. We have a growing homelessness problem, which is extremely concerning, but we don’t have it to the level to where you’re going.

You’re going to see random violence springing up all across the country, culminating in a civil war. We’re not there. We’re not there. Some of the guardrails that we have, some economic viability, some measure of law and order. Those are the guardrails. But are we in a dangerous point? Yes. And could there ever come along a series of divisive incidences or a big incident where all hell breaks loose? As long as these polarizations exist, the answer is yes. I mean, look at the Obamas world left behind, right? What they made for Netflix, the movie civil war, the mindset of the country is clearly there to some degree.

But when I look at the historical framework for this, we are not at a civil war point, but we’re much closer to it than we were say five years ago. I said in the beginning, de-escalation. Did I not? De-escalation. When you’re speaking to someone one-on-one and you’re not agreeing simply, I understand that’s your position. That’s okay. It doesn’t mean I don’t like you. And you know, two of my four best friends fall down on the liberal side. They’re not extreme. And they don’t have Trump Tarrangement syndrome, but they don’t necessarily like you either. But I can have conversations with these people.

And then we move on to talking about basketball or football or our families. De-escalation and not letting things spring up. What do you do about the relative at Thanksgiving that won’t invite you because you voted for Donald Trump? I would tell that person are still your family and he’s de-escalate. De-escalation starting at the grassroots level can spread. You know, whenever there’s an unpopular issue with the left, many times they don’t even show up for the hearing in Congress. That’s not de-escalation. That’s like middle finger to you. We don’t care what you think. That’s an escalating move.

I can’t control what Congress does, but I can control what I do in my own life in terms of de-escalation. And so can you. And that’s where I believe we should focus as private citizens. And we need to call out people who scream for escalation. Personal attacks that have nothing to do with issues, such as someone’s appearance, as I mentioned earlier. We need to call those things out. Because at some point in time, if we don’t heal some of the rift that’s in our country, we may not be able to pull things back. I’m Dave Hodges.

This is the Common Sense Show. We will see you back here again next time. [tr:trw].