Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Selling Secession- Part Two

By now, most have reviewed, or at least googled, Colin Woodard's American Nations.

It's possible that a few checked out Tim Draper's "Six Californias."

There may have even been interest in investigating the "Cascadia Movement."

There will certainly be more written on "Texit."

In all, those insightful enough to "read the tea leaves," may conclude that a separation movement will have it's origins in the West. This is fitting. The West has the most to gain!

A question that will emerge: "Would a President Hillary Clinton draw the line rather quickly? To states withdrawing from the union, wouldn't her response be, "not hardly?"

She would like to! Mrs. Clinton's historical demeanor would suggest that she would be outraged! But there are numerous considerations. Starting with, the military.

The armed forces are pledged to defend the constitution, not the presidency. The Secret Service holds that responsibility! It would be the high leadership of the United State's armed forces who might take the greatest exception, in the name of national unity. But, who is to say that the military leadership itself is not deeply divided? Smart money suggests that it is. If so, commissioned military officers might cast their lots with their home states. This would be a worst case scenario for Hillary Clinton and the states staying with her.

The Cascadia movement would attract a lot of disgruntled liberals. These are the Americans who have given up on the idea of "one country, one people." Dismayed and disgusted with the inherent corruption clearly evidenced by the Clinton machine, they would welcome a new life in a beautiful respite. Especially, when the government announced it's intention to use Huey Long's "Every man a King," concept to effectively turn six socio-economic classes into four!

For those unfamiliar with the former Louisiana Governor/Senator's proclamation that "you could be a millionaire," consider this. Long believed that every citizen was owed free public education, including higher education, and free healthcare. He asserted that "inherited money" was the "root of all evil." His solution: "Everyone was entitled to a million dollars, tax free." Over an above that went back into state coffers, benefiting all. For better insight, please reference T. Harry William's autobiography, "Kingfish." I would guess that Bernie Sanders has already done so.

Unlike Cascadia, the remaining California's West, North and Silicon Valley, might want to maintain ties with Hillary's America. This would largely depend on what happened with the Midwest. But, there is always the chance that they might decide to make it on their own, as Cascadia would seek to do. The final disposition of these twenty-three million people could remain fluid until much later.

Meanwhile, Clinton and cohorts would face three major considerations. The first is obviously the police and law enforcement agencies.

The surface impression suggests that men and women working in law enforcement would obey directives given. Their unpredictability stems from where those orders come from. Most are originated at the local or state levels. Thousands of local officials are visibly unhappy with the tone and actions of the current administration. Not much relief is considered forthcoming when assessing a Clinton presidency. These law enforcement officials are vital in quelling potential revolts. Thus, the motivation to nationalize the police forces.

Veterans nationwide are furious with the Obama Administration. Hillary Clinton does not represent a departure from current practices. Many of our Vets are aggrieved beyond words. Angering former military members is not a good idea. Especially when considering how many young people in arms would be influenced by them.

Scaring the Clinton's the most is "Armed America." The National Rifle Association recently estimated approximately 312 million firearms in the United States accounted for. At least that number are believed to be unaccounted for. Almost all these weapons are in the hands of roughly 30% of the population. It's little wonder why Clinton and the left seek rigid gun control measures!

Any efforts to subdue a peaceful separation of states by force could bring on a confrontation that would make the first Civil War look like a church social! Clinton's advisers undoubtedly would advise against a violent reprisal. After all, this isn't 1861. We no longer live in the "Age of Innocence." We have Television. We have the Internet. Most Americans simply don't care! To expect them to welcome a "bloodbath" is beyond reality!

Hillary's pragmatic Jewish advisory contingent would share the apocalyptic downside! This would be a "mano versus mano" war, left versus the right, winner take all. Being forced to vacate the continent would suddenly become a real possibility!

Isn't a half of a loaf of bread better than no bread? Depends on how you slice it! Not to mention, who is selling it!

Hillary Clinton's negative ratings are very high. Against Donald Trump, they are comparable. But, what about when comparing negatives to those of Rick Perry?

Perry represents everything that Clinton isn't. He is the son of West Texas tenant farmers. Rick Perry didn't have an indoor bathroom until age six. Unlike Clinton, he couldn't afford a fancy school back east. Instead, he attended Texas A & M on a ROTC scholarship. Upon graduation, he entered the Air Force, flying C-130's in 51 sorties!

Military men, especially former combat veterans, love Rick Perry. So do Christian fundamentalists. To them, a choice between Rick and Hillary would be a choice between good and evil; Christianity versus Secular Humanism; honesty versus corruption. It would represent choosing between Americanism and Globalism; a choice between an encroaching federal government and "states rights." Perry attests to being a "10th amendment guy," less we forget!

The latter consideration would be pivotal in determining the final outcomes of Colorado and Utah.

What about the East? Would Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia join their Southern Brothers? For that matter, what about those Midwestern States referenced in the previous post?

Before we go there, let us return to the West once more. Previously the sequence moved North, crossing the Canadian border. Three provinces exited Canada, creating a crisis in itself. It is highly probable that both Clinton and her Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau might summon the help of the United Nations.

For Americans seeking separation, the rage would be beyond words! Mrs. Clinton would be the "globalist," inviting foreign players to subdue Americans here at home. Ouch! Many would vow to "kill UN operatives first, asking questions later."

The new republic would waste no time in gaining recognition. Russia and Great Britain would likely be the first two nations to extend the welcome mat!

By now, I would anticipate every state west of the Mississippi, with the exception of Minnesota, the three non-"texiting" Californias, Cascadia, and Hawaii falling in. Hawaii's disposition would remain fluid, a final determination to come later.

Woodard's book defines Georgia and South Carolina as a mix of "Deep South" and "Greater Appalachia." North Carolina represents these nations, plus "Tidewater." Virginia is a mix of "Greater Appalachia" and the "Tidewater" nations.

Although small, Maryland represents three nations: "Tidewater, Greater Appalachia" and "The Midlands.Maryland's five western counties have recently made public their aspired separation from the rest of the state. Woodard's model places these counties in "Greater Appalachia." Many of the 500,000 residents have indicated a desire to join West Virginia.

The "Eastern Shore" of Maryland and the Southern counties, starting with Anne Arundel, are "Tidewater." So are Kent and Sussex counties, Delaware. Collectively, we have better than two million people living in these nineteen counties. Did I hear the word "Chesapeake?"

How the East will ultimately shake down is anyone's guess. But, the probability of four Southern States and a new Tidewater state, christened "Chesapeake," all going with Texas, is high.

Northern Virginia has three counties that are essentially "Washington, D.C.." A breakup in the Union might be to their detriment, but it would hardly matter. They would go with the rest of the state. Or, they would wait until the fate of D.C. itself was determined.

At this juncture, we are better than 180 million who have cast their lots with Texas and the new Republic. The end of the Exodus is not in sight.

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.















Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.















Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.















Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.















Saturday, July 9, 2016

Globalism Becoming Toxic Watchword in America

Somehow, our mainstream media never got it!

The seething anger that has enveloped America like a smoldering fire can be described with two words:

"Anti-globalism."

The Paul Ryan's, Mitt Romney's, the Bush clan or any of the Republican "leadership" never got it! Neither did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer or any of the Democrat bosses. Buried deep inside their Washington bubble, they never comprehended that the average Joe didn't want to hear their proclamation that we "live in a global society" and we must accept Thomas Friedman's verdict that "the world is flat."

Therefore, when Donald Trump emerged on the political scene, professing problems with our current trade deals, they became incensed. I use the word "they" because it was indeed a bi-partisan preference for the ways that things were.

So are we not a global society? And, if not, what are the alternatives?

Let us visit the second question first. The polar opposite to globalism is nationalism. Too simplified? Let's dissect it from a media perspective.

Our mainstream media is essentially a concentration of globalists who see the United States as a nation that has traditionally exploited other nations to amass the wealth currently held. It was so flagrant that Barack Obama felt that he needed to issue an apology to the rest of the world during his first months in office.

Trump's brand of nationalism AKA as "America first," was quickly construed as racism and bigotry. His promise to "make America great again," was translated by Hillary Clinton among others as "taking America back to a time of discriminatory practices and limited opportunity for all."

The objective to "secure the borders" was also given a thumbs down by both party hierarchies. For Democrats, it amounted to thwarting future voters. For the Republican Establishment, it posed a threat on an ongoing supply of cheap labor. Trump talked of "building a wall." He stated correctly that without it, "we wouldn't have a country." His party leadership seemed more worried about alienating Latino voters. Hillary and company picked up on it, cagily asserting that that their aim was to "remove barriers not create them."

The hope, of course, was to confuse "Joe-Six Pack." If the hierarchies of both parties were successful, a rogue like Donald Trump would be dismissed as a charlatan who didn't understand how things actually worked. Problem for both Democrat and Republican leadership was that Joe-Six Pack wasn't confused! He understood plainly that "globalization" translated to his job being shipped overseas, where cheap labor maximized profit for large corporations.

These Washingtonians may be further surprised this November when Donald Trump does much better than predicted with Hispanic voters. Why will he? Because, inside the beltway bubble, there is little understanding that "immigration reform" is not the only issue concerning Latinos. Both "currency stability" and "jobs and the economy" outrank it! Imagine that!

Why African Americans continue their love affair with the Democrat party remains a mystery. But statistics tell the story. Black unemployment remains unchanged, despite nearly eight years of an African America president. Yet, Mrs. Clinton and Democrats seem unable to offer any solutions, other than gun control.

Eventually, Abraham Lincolns famous assessment will find sufficient African American ears: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Look for people of color to finally ignore the stale words of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, taking a look at Trump's plan to incentivize job creators in inner city problem places such as Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit. It is reminiscent of that old national Negro college ad, "We don't want a handout, just a hand."

Promoting minority entrepreneurialism in the inner cities may be the correct path for America in general. But, it does reduce dependency. That in itself, is a threat when remembering that we are speaking of a key Democrat constituency! Like blue-collar whites, these voters fully understand that globalism is not in their best interest. By the same token, border security is.

In short, globalism is not something to be excited about, let alone embrace. Unless, of course, you are seeking cheap labor and maximum profits. Up until now, "lower middle class America" has lacked a spokesman. The two parties in power have essentially been one in the same where globalism was concerned. Donald Trump has identified it as the real woe in the lives of a frustrated population.

"Brexit" has inspired the country. More and more Americans are seeking something that will allow them to reclaim their destiny. Those opposed are being reassessed. Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, the Bushes and the Clintons are undergoing renewed scrutiny. The traditional party lines are growing increasingly blurred.

Make no mistake! There will be Bernie Sanders supporters who will pull the lever for Trump this November. It is also common knowledge that both Bush first ladies have expressed preference for Hillary Clinton!

Up until now it has been "red team versus blue team, playing for the same university." Much to the chagrin of both, there is now another alternative.