"The UN will not 'mess with Texas,' Martin Nesirky, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman, tells Reuters."
Well, that's reassuring, coming as it does from that paragon of rectitude, the United Nations. Purty smart on their part, I'd say.
The author of the article, however, makes this statement:
Today’s stakes, though substantial, are not of civil-war caliber. Whether Obama or Romney is elected in November, chances are great that the workings of the Constitution will temper any revolutionary strains, as it has since the end of the Civil War.
This is whistling past the graveyard of history, pure and simple. What if, for example, the election is stolen, or perceived to be stolen?
The damage that has been done to the perceived legitimacy of the federal government by this administration is greater than any other time in history, save in the run-up to the War Between the States, and probably even then. The Gunwalker Scandal is only a small part of that. Does the author think that just because someone declares the election to have been "fair" or the Supreme Court votes 5-4 that something is "legal" when it is blatantly unconstitutional on its face will be meekly accepted? Does he think people will merely roll over for more depredations upon their liberty and property?
This Christian Science Monitor reporter doesn't get around much, does he?
We are closer to civil war right now than at any time since 1861. Believe it.