Please verify

Blaze Media
Watch LIVE

Horowitz: Is it time for a two-state solution?


Today, the two sides disagree over every facet of life — starting with fundamental rights

STILLFX/Getty Images

For years, everyone was sure that the solution to the endless terror attacks against Israelis was to create a two-state solution for the Jews and the Arabs living in the region. Donald Trump proved this 30-year obsession to be a false god by bringing peace between Israel and its neighbors without forcing Israel to cede more land. Perhaps what we have all missed all along is that the real two-state solution is needed right here at home in the once united states.

During the time of the Revolutionary War, the Patriots and Tories really only disagreed on one fundamental question: whether the existing power grabs by King George were worth further agitating the British and risking their lives against a military much stronger than the American colonies'. They all, however, understood fundamental rights. The question forced some of the colonists to self-separate before and during the war.

During the lead-up to the Civil War, the two sides disagreed on one vital question of fundamental rights of black people living in America. It led to a bloody war.

Today, the two sides disagree over every facet of life: the economy, theology, natural law, constitutional rights, and the purpose of America. Perhaps we need to self-separate before the Marxist political dominance and street violence become reciprocal.

How can we bridge the divide with a group of people who believe that men can be women?

How can we bridge the divide with those who believe government can shut down the First Amendment rights of Americans to work and pray, but it can't stop illegal aliens from coming here and securing welfare?

How can we bridge the divide with those who believe it's cruel and unusual punishment not to offer sex-change operations to criminals in prison but that it's not cruel to vacuum the brains out of unborn babies?

How can we bridge the divide with those who criminalize children who don't place masks on their mouths, but advocate for release of those who rob and maim with masks?

How can we bridge the divide with those who believe certain people and causes have a right to riot, loot, maim, and trap and attack random motorists with impunity, but those who defend themselves against it have no right to live?

Most importantly, how can we bridge the divide when the other side seeks to dominate us at all costs, while we merely seek to abide by the Constitution and don't impose our will on them?

When we win a national election, they can always retreat to their states and pretty much do whatever they want. Life in California and New York didn't change one iota during the Trump presidency. In fact, those states have gotten even more loony. Whereas when they win, we have nowhere to go to practice our faith and earn a living without being molested with coronavirus fascism, life-destroying regulations and taxes, and risks to our safety and security.

Is it perhaps time to divide permanently so that we can actually live in peace?

If they want to abolish the Border Patrol, the military, and the police, let them live in the part of the country without those institutions and most certainly without the nukes. We will have them.

If they want to give illegal aliens more rights than Americans, take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and refuse to lock up violent criminals, including gun felons, let them live with the consequences, while we use our governments for the few core functions it is supposed to serve.

If they want to crush small businesses with illogical regulations, let them try to start business and attract commerce in their states with those onerous rules but leave us free to govern ourselves elsewhere.

If they believe there is a fundamental right to camp out on public streets, let them live on those streets, but don't come to our states when the going gets rough to transform our paradise into your existing hell.

If they feel they could live without fossil fuels, let them take all the windmills, and we will take the oil and gas.

In many ways, this would be the easiest custody battle of any divorce. We are not fighting over the same money, materials, and children. We want the unborn children, while they want MS-13 and the Muslim Brotherhood. We want the energy sources that work, while they want those that are impotent. We want the jails filled with dangerous people, while they want them filled with those who dare to deviate from the COVID religion. We want the police and they want the social workers.

President Lincoln presciently warned in 1858 that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" without reaching a crisis point. "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free," he famously told Republican delegates at their first convention in Springfield, Illinois. Given that today we are divided over infinitely more issues, how can we stand together in the same house without reaching that crisis point?

Perhaps we need two separate houses. After all, unlike in past conflicts, we are unlikely to brawl over the same furniture.
Most recent

Education secretary advocates for ending corporal punishment at schools

All Articles