Of course not. Go right ahead. :)

o.O

Mixed historical metaphor.
The reference to the Rubicon is when Julius Caesar made the irrefutable decision to violate Roman law by bringing his army into Rome proper, by crossing the Rubicon.

Do you refer to Henry V's speech at Halfleur, or Agincourt?

I find this rather appropriate for today's circumstances....

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/horatius/...

"But when the face of Sextus
Was seen among the foes,
A yell that rent the firmament
From all the town arose.
On the house-tops was no woman
But spat towards him and hissed,
No child but screamed out curses,
And shook its little fist."

(The modern English translation of the name "Sextus" is "Bill Clinton"; Sextus was the son of the king, and when he wanted to have an affair with a Roman matron, she refused. He had her murdered, and the Romans rose up and threw the kings out; they ran to their powerful relative, Lars Porsena, who raised an 80+ thousand man army to come chastise the Romans.)

"XXVI

But the Consul's brow was sad,
And the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall,
And darkly at the foe.
'Their van will be upon us
Before the bridge goes down;
And if they once may win the bridge,
What hope to save the town?'

XXVII

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
'To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,

XXVIII

'And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?"

(that's my favorite part. )

"XXXI

'Horatius,' quoth the Consul,
'As thou sayest, so let it be.'
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome's quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.

XXXII

Then none was for a party;
Then all were for the state;
Then the great man helped the poor,
And the poor man loved the great:
Then lands were fairly portioned;
Then spoils were fairly sold:
The Romans were like brothers
In the brave days of old.

XXXIII

Now Roman is to Roman
More hateful than a foe,
And the Tribunes beard the high,
And the Fathers grind the low.
As we wax hot in faction,
In battle we wax cold:
Wherefore men fight not as they fought
In the brave days of old."

Note that this is not entirely incompatible with Objectivism. After all, what Objectivist is going to divide socially between "haves" and "have-not"s? (between the "do"s and the "do-not"s, yes...)

The above is a fair metaphor for what happened to America in AS.