OK, I'm back but I don't know for how long.

I don't know why but I have to make this post. I'm like most people who seem to love to complain about the world the way it is and draw comparisons with a "better" past. But this time I want to talk about the future. Nay, I HAVE to talk about the future.

One thing about talking about the future, no question that it's an opinion. My opinions have been blindsided many times by the future. Despite my being sure that I could see around that corner.

But this time I don't think it's my opinion. It didn't arrive in my brain by the usual path. Some very specific thoughts were just suddenly there, unconnected to anything that came before them. I've never had any thought like this before, appearing full-blown as if spoken to me by someone else.

Despite this "revelation" aspect of what came to me, I've tried post-event to analyze what might have created it. But it is so "far-out" that I can't imagine I'll be able to do a good job of that. I'll try.

I would like to blame it on the rather infamous blogger who for a year almost two years ago claimed to be from 40 years in the future, a time-traveler, who "revealed" some of the immediate future for us. I knew that he was just a person wanting attention and taking a rather obscure route to get it. But much of what he said, well, who knows...

So, I was watching the news last night and they were talking about one of the few subjects they can discuss nowadays, the fiasco going on in San Francisco. Now, I believe the mayor is violating the law, something which he shouldn't do, because I believe that we're a nation of laws.

Whether he's right or wrong is immaterial. It is not his job to make laws or interpret them. As an individual he has no more right than any of us to decide what laws should be obeyed. But as a public official he does have more responsibility than just any old citizen to obey all laws. With power comes responsibility.

Someone then asked why we haven't heard from the governor of California on this whole thing. Good question, I thought. And that's when the thought came, totally out of context. And, this morning, when I read the governor's comments, the thought became very real.

The governor said (paraphrasing), "I believe gays should have equal rights as in civil unions. I also believe that the law restricting marriage to man-woman should be obeyed. I'm asking the mayor of San Francisco to please respect the law."

Now, if you have to ASK someone to respect the law, you can be sure that law is next to useless. Or at least your enforcement of it is. It's akin to standing in front of a lynch mob and saying, "Why don't we just all calm down and go home." If you have to ASK someone to respect the law, you can be sure you'll have to FORCE him to. So what gives?

I think the governor is AFRAID to do anything. He's afraid because of the irrationality of the other side, afraid of inflaming an already explosive situation. Now the governor, as head of the executive branch of government in California, has the right to arrest the mayor. And he has the power, being able to call on the national guard and even declare martial law if necessary.

But he doesn't want to be the one to kick off what I see looming in the future. When a citizen refuses to obey the law, then a crime has been committed. When a group of citizens refuse to obey the law, then a riot can ensue. When any part of the government refuses to obey the laws legally enacted, anarchy is born. The scale of consequences is greatly increased.

In a nation such as ours, we cannot afford to let any elected official decide what laws should be obeyed, or rather, which laws THEY will obey. In that direction lies anarchy, pure and simple, no matter how lofty or noble the motives. It does little good to have noble motives if you don't have a democracy to express them in.

Many point to civil disobedience as an excuse. But if we look at some of the people in history who have led such disobediences, we find that they led such protests where no other way was to be found. Scarcely the situation here. No, the mayor of San Francisco wants the fame that goes with his actions, his spoken motives are a smoke screen.

The state of California's government is much like our federal one, with three branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. There are checks and balances and the respective jobs of the three branches are the same as at the federal level.

There is no need for a mayor of a single city (no matter how strange that city may be) to "interfere" in the process of a democratic republic. Other than whatever personal motive he might have in the political arena.

I think, however, that it is highly significant that this is all happening in California. We know that California is hardly mainstream America. We also know that they use referendums frequently. Thus, the law concerning marriage was recently enforced by the voice of a majority of the people.

The mayor is not only refusing to obey the law, he is refusing to obey the will of the people. And this strikes at the very heart of any democracy. He is putting himself above not only the law but the will of the people. He is heading us for a cliff, the direct conflict of the government and the people.

He bases this on his interpretation of the constitution of his state (thus usurping the role of the courts). Do you honestly believe that if the constitution was changed to specifically say what the law does, that he would act any different? Why would one piece of paper matter any more than another to him? He would simply say that the amendment was wrong just as the law was.

So the governor of a state is afraid to enforce the laws he was elected to enforce. It won't be long for that reluctance to be confronted by another group. And another. A paper tiger seldom gets much peace. Chaos must be stopped at once or it will become unstoppable in short order.

The courts in California now have a partial grasp on the situation as more rational heads attempt to head off confrontation. But, knowing the California courts, this will not end the matter. They WILL strike down the law, the mayor will feel vindicated. And this is where my thought gels, where it fits in.

Because the people of California, like the people of this nation, have come to resent a few people sitting on courts telling them that what they want is wrong. And in particular, they're tired of being made to feel bad because they don't agree with some small fraction of the population. Easier to still the voice of that small fraction than to accept such blame for "improper" thoughts.

They will rise up, they will make their voice heard in the only way they have left. When the government no longer represents the people, when disobedience to the law is tolerated, then ALL will disobey and chaos will result. It has always happened eventually when the government attempts to subjugate the will of the people.

And the governor will have no choice but to act. Except by that time it will be the courts which must be checked, not a lowly official. And he will hesitate one last time. Just like Bush with the federal constitution, he will wait too long to enforce the will of the people.

By the way, we all know our federal government is built with "checks and balances." And most of us know about a lot of them. But do you know what the checks are on the judiciary? I went over and looked it up.

"... the judiciary itself is subject to executive and legislative checking through the appointment of judges and the passage of legislation governing organization, procedure, and jurisdiction of the courts."

Well, the Democrats are preventing the first possibility, so I think we'll see the second, that legislation will be passed to dictate more how the court system will work, limiting its powers and jurisdiction. This will NOT be well received.

You know, in my group at church I was once humorously known as "prophecy guy." More because of the cynicism and seriousness with which I spoke of current events than real prophesizing. But today I wonder how prophetic that title was.

It happened in Russia in 1918 (I think that date is right). It also happened here (although we don't think of it this way) 140 years ago. There's going to be a revolution. This was the gist of the thought which came into my head, out of nowhere. All this analysis here is after-the-fact opinion. The original thought was not.

"Within the next five years there will be a civil war". That's exactly the thought that hit me as I sat in my living room.

Funny thing is, that's exactly what the "time-traveler" said. If he's wrong, if I'm wrong, thank God.

One thing will lead to another and another and another. I can see a time when the President shuts the doors of the Supreme Court, when the normal elective processes are put into abeyance. I can see a time when this divided nation will fight, brother against brother once more, armed forces against citizen soldiers, as they did 140 years ago. They didn't believe it was going to go as far as it did then, either.

Political correctness (funny how much more descriptive of its true nature when spelled out like that rather than abbreviated PC) will die, but it's going to be a bloody death. And the country we now see around us will vanish away.

I pray that I'm just old and senile. But I fear I'm not.