Sunday, August 13, 2017

Statue Removal Nothing More Than Cultural Marxism

For those who bother to dig, Robert E. Lee was one of America's true heroes!

Amazingly, there are those who continue to equate the War Between the States as a war about slavery. In reality, the argument revolved around an altogether different topic.

Still, when you watch the riots that recently took place in Charlottesville, Virginia and understand that removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee was the center point issue, most ask, "was Lee that offensive? And it so, to who?"

Few know that Robert E. Lee proposed and pushed through adoption of black slaves fighting for the Confederate army. The measure was adopted April 2nd, 1865. The significance of this gesture was simple: "Blacks were seen as Southerners." This action insured future inclusion.

When viewed from this prospective, you can easily place Robert E. Lee along side Martin Luther King, as a prime advocate for the rights of African Americans.

Behind this craze over revisionist history is "political correctness." As referenced in a previous post, "P.C." is "cultural Marxism." It contends that "if you do not agree with me, you are a racist, fascist, bigot, essentially a deplorable." To not oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, on the assumption that Lee was the leader in a racist cause called the "Civil War," is fodder for the weak minded.

The "War Between the States" was not a Civil war. In a true Civil war, the president would have closed the ports. Abraham Lincoln blockaded them. In doing so, he recognized the Southern states as a hostile nation. Thus, if accuracy is one's cup of tea, the conflict must be called for what it was: "The War Between the States."

Why does this matter?

There were more Americans killed in this war than all other wars combined. Sadly the entire conflict could have been avoided; had the will to avoid the war been there. It wasn't! The Northeastern states sought to use the Federal Government to gain advantage over the Southern states. The South simply wanted out.

Over the years, the perception of the war has changed. Rather than reveal the true causes of the war, forces of "Secular, Global Socialism" seek to use it as their "case in point!" If you don't agree that the statues come down, then you are a "racist, fascist, bigot, deplorable or all of the above!"

The question becomes, "where is the line drawn?"

As seen in Charlottesville, Virginians and other Southerners proud of their heritage, took exception to P.C. and it's cultural Marxist position. Expect to see the same in Lexington, Kentucky when Lexington's gay mayor, Jim Gray tries to move the statues of John Hunt Morgan and John Breckinridge from the lawn of the old court house.

Perhaps this preference for revisionist history, symbolized by the statue removals hints at the true divide in America. The nation has not been so divided since 1861. Unlike 1861 however, the divide is ideological, not sectional.

One one side, we have "Judeo-Christian Nationalists." Most supported Donald Trump for the Presidency.

On the other side we have "Secular, Globalist-Socialists." Virtually all supported Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Caught the middle are the "Neo-Cons," who in it for themselves, primarily. They favor the status quot. The last thing they want is an interruption of business as usual.

A conflict of this magnitude would forever change the political landscape. Contemporary political elites and D.C. insiders, now being referred to as "the deep state," would find themselves "instant anachronisms." Time would have simply bypassed them.

For this reason, it would appear likely that Neo-Cons will ultimately find their way into the Trump camp. Most are Globalists, and as much as they may loathe Trump's National Populism, the alternative is less forgiving.

It begins with positioning. When revisionist historians are labeled "Cultural Marxists,"promoting secularism,globalism and Socialism," the battle lines will have been drawn.






Sunday, July 30, 2017

Dodd Frank: "The Ultimate Middle Class Killer"

Sometimes the cure is worst than the affliction!

Former Connecticut Senator, Christopher Dodd and Massachusetts Congressman, Barney Frank, the authors of Dodd-Frank, described it as "the needed remedy for a financial system gone haywire." Former Clinton Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin and Federal Reserve Chairwoman and Obama appointee, Janet Yellen still contend that it was "necessary regulation."

For small business and Middle Class Americans," it was the "wettest of wet blankets."

The blame is purely bi-partisan! Former Texas Governor and current Energy Secretary, Rick Perry was one of the first to point out the true causes of the 2008, financial meltdown. A Republican Congress worked with President Bill Clinton to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act.

Glass-Steagall prevented traditional banks from doing the riskier work of investment banking, stock market speculation, hedge funds, etc..It was repealed in 1999 under the "Financial Services Modernization Act." For nearly 70 years Glass-Steagall had separated commercial from investment banking.

There continue to be those who remain in denial. They are mostly big bank boosters and Wall Street analysts who still can't believe that that the Act's repeal had anything to do with the Panic of 2008. Yet evidence clearly suggests that it did.

The origin of Glass-Steagall and the motivations behind it's repeal are separate subjects for a different post. But it is important to note the players and how they used the Panic of 2008 to craft legislation that hurt Community Banks, Credit Unions, small business and essentially, the American Middle Class.

Wasn't it Yellen and Rubin's friend, Rahm Emmanuel, who said "don't let a crisis go to waste?" This crisis lined the pockets of the few, to the detriment of the many. That's how wealth transfers work.

Could it have been by design? I have never been big on conspiracy theories. But,"Dodd Frank" introduced the "Volker Rule" which prevented Banks from "propriety trading." In other words, banks could not use their own money for speculative investing.

Sounds slightly Orwellian!

I never was a Paul Volker fan! He will always be remembered as Jimmy Carter's Federal Reserve Chairman. Volker, Rahm Emanuel, Robert Rubin and Janet Yellen have three things in common: The are card carrying members of the "Council of Foreign Relations." They are globalists. They are Democrats.

To stay in denial is easier than admitting the truth. If you continue to repeat a falsehood, people might eventually believe it. To admit mistakes at this level can bring about catastrophic, career ending possibilities. The "safe route" was to "create a smokes screen" that pinned the blame on "the help."

Dodd-Frank wouldn't have happened without the Panic of 2008; and the subsequent Republican meltdown. Until Senator Edward Kennedy's death and Scott Brown's surprising Senate victory, the Democrats held sixty Senate seats. Sadly, Brown's Massachusetts orientation would not allow him to vote against Dodd-Frank.

It sounded marginally creditable, thanks to the endorsement of Wall Street "gurus," ironically responsible for the catastrophe! Especially to those who didn't understand the intricacies of banking and most particularly, mortgage lending. Those who experienced Dodd-Frank first hand, described it as a "regulatory nightmare."

Just imagine...You are attempting to refinance your home. You know that the loan that you took out in 2007 still has twenty years to go before being paid off. Your rate is 6%. Not too bad, but you learn you're eligible for a 3.25% loan that would shortened your term by five years, while reducing payments!

You learn, that the less desirable house across the street just sold for double what you paid for your house in 2007. You assume that you have sufficient equity to, not only pay off $20,000 in credit card debt, but replace your roof.

This is "grassroots American entrepreneurship" at it's best! The homeowner is "taking earned equity to retire non-tax qualified debt, in favor of tax qualified debt, coupled with both home improvement and long term interest savings."

Prior to Dodd-Frank, this would have been a common scenario. Today, it's not so easy, starting with seventy pages of redundant assurances most find more confusing than informative. Upon completion, you make a credit card payment to the lenders "Appraisal Management Company." This costs between "$500-$650," about "twice" the cost of a "Pre-Dodd Frank" appraisal.

Regulators say that the change prevents Mortgage Loan Originators from "coercing" appraisers. The ugly, behind-the-scene rationale amounts to the government doesn't want people using their homes like an ATM machine.

Three Appraisal Management Company members, in three different cities, admitted to witnessing efforts by HUD to promote overly conservative estimations of value. As a Cleveland based, AMC rep remembered, "These guys from HUD came to our office and simply said, "whatever the value, reduce it by 20%."

More than slightly Orwellian!

In 2012 FHA wording hinted that underwriters were encouraged to "look for ways to not approve mortgage loans." No joke! It was actually in the continuing education material, required for S.A.F.E. Mortgage Loan Origination license renewal.

The conventional side is even more rigorous. Rates are typically higher. Underwriting requirements are more strenuous. Qualification for non-owner occupied investment loans; utilized for rental housing, are more restrictive than ever!

Why does this matter?

Those who blundered, ultimately bilked "main street" America for billions, if not trillions of dollars. And mostly benefited! Left holding the bag was "Joe Six-Pack" who merely wanted a mortgage loan; or to buy some rent houses. Not to mention those small business' who were in business to facilitate him!

Those "too big to fail, Wall Street, "Fat cats," will never admit the truth. Their greed lead to the nation's catastrophe. If you haven't seen the movie, "The Big Short," you should. Much comes to light, regarding the Panic of 2008.

To airily blame "non-conforming lending and mortgage brokers" for the meltdown is like "chopping off the tops of weeds."Banks created the loan products! Brokers were their "cheap help;" because they were not required to provide benefits, as they did for their "in house" Loan Originators.

Former Empire Equity CEO, Ezra Behmann explained the rationale. "Straight commission, on collection, salespeople are the least expensive form of labor known to entrepreneurship." These reduced labor costs were passed on to the consumer.

The Appraisal Management companies are seen by industry people as "leaches;" making more than the appraisers for little effort. Appraisers are making less than ten years previously. Many of the best ones have left the industry.

Title companies, another small business adversely impacted by Dodd-Frank, have struggled to stay a float. Many have gone out; because the Brokers who were feeding them, also went out. Consumers seeking smaller loans suddenly had few options.

Closing cost caps dropped to five percent; from eight percent. It sounds good! But, providers(Appraisers, Title Companies, Surveyors, Government, etc.) must be paid from the 5%. Thus, if you are attempting to borrow $50,000, a lender is capped at $2500 for fees. Appraisal, title and government fees, generally account for $1500 to $1800, which are included. Then comes lender and processor fees; anywhere from $1000-1500 additional dollars.

Did anyone expect this result?

Maybe not. It is reminiscent of a farmer who is angered by foxes constantly stealing his chickens. Yet, his retaliatory response is to "butcher his rabbits."

A darker conclusion would entail a plot to eliminate lower end homeowners. Instead of working to facilitate reduced monthly housing costs, poor Americans are told to "turn to government." It is consistent with "encouraging the poor to rely upon AFDC, Section eight housing, food stamps and Medicaid" as long-term sustenance.

Discouraging cash-out refinances, through manipulation of the appraisal system, is contrary to our American Dream! Government should be encouraging independent, entrepreneurial thinking! Dodd-Frank facilitates the opposite.

The big banks complained a bit. But, they could afford the "scores" of staff lawyers necessitated by Dodd-Frank. As Kentucky Sixth District Congressman, Andy Barr pointed out, "there were 1500 Community Banks that went out in 2015, as a result of Dodd-Frank."

Barr, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, reminded that the "Consumer Finance Protection Bureau" is not funded by Congress. It is funded by the Federal Reserve. CFPB was another Obama initiative that conveniently avoided Congress!

Never forget! Those big bank players, such as Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimond benefit from the concept of "too big to fail."

The good news is the Republican remedy, "The Financial Choice Act," passed the house, June 8th of this year. It is now working it's way through the Senate. There is no guarantee that it will bring about all of the necessary changes. But, it does have a chance. Especially if the Senate bi-passes the traditional 60 vote standard, in favor of a more doable 51 majority thresh hold.

Sadly, the poor and uneducated remain in the dark,trusting their politicians. They were told that Dodd-Frank would protect them. What it did was to make them lifelong renters.

What's especially damning with Dodd-Frank is elimination of the Middle Class practice of "playing work-up."

Historically young people would buy starter homes, hold them a few years, then sell them, taking the proceeds to invest in a bigger and better house. Often, their first house was a "fixer upper." The FHA 203k rehabilitation loan was hailed as the greatest "wealth creator" devised. But, the increased FHA paperwork has pretty much ended that!

Under Dodd-Frank, student loan debts in deferment are now counted in debt-to-income ratios. This is especially demoralizing for millennials attempting to buy their first homes.











Monday, July 17, 2017

Mainstream Media Pushing Globalism, Socialism

Amazing how clear things are becoming!

When we tune into the NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN, you would think that "Russia" is practically the only issue on the American public's mind. Why is that? The mainstream media cannot possibly be that "obtuse!"

In a previous post, the distinct divide in America was unveiled. It isn't merely "liberal versus conservatism." It is certainly not sectionalism. In truth, it is a question of "America first," or "America as an important part of the family of nations." In essence, "Nationalism versus Globalism."

The former sounds harsh; almost threatening. The latter comes off as nice, dare I say, "politically correct."

In his 2000 essay," The Origins of Political Correctness," Bill Lind wrote: "We call it Political Correctness. The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend to think of it as only half serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China indeed around the world. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.

"If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly which it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not the the 1960's and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War 1. It we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious."

There are college students across America who are stating their preference for Socialism. Yet, when asked to "define Socialism," they are without words! Was this largely due to their "champion," Bernie Sander's promise of free stuff; because they were entitled to it? In a different era, a Socialist's promise of chits and boonies would have been subject to endless ridicule. Today, not so! The mainstream media, if anything, glamorized Sanders!

Donald Trump, for better or for worse, wasn't as concerned with appeasing the status quot. His proclamation "to Make American Great Again," insinuated that those before him had been focused on the exact opposite. His supporters will tell you that Barack Obama epitomized the idea of "the world first."

Sander's and Obama's positions do have one thing in common: Both are politically correct, according to the modern standards reflected by the mainstream media. The certainly "jive" with the doctrine defined by "secular, global socialism." Trump's "faith based nationalism" is your polar opposite.

Upon this conclusion, it's easy to see why Trump is hated by so many! Nothing wrong with opposing points of view.Members of the media are supposed to be neutral. They aren't. They are on a mission to expand the ideology of secular, global socialism. Opponents are positioned as, in Hillary Clinton's words, "deplorables." The best way to not be thrown into the deplorable bucket is be politically correct.

Bill Bennett, George H.W. Bush's Education Secretary drew the same contrast that I did in a previous post: "That America is more ideologically divided that at any time since 1861." Sadly, this ideological divide is impacting nearly ever issue. Starting with foreign involvement in elections.

The Russians have attempted to influence elections in America for decades. I recall Senator Edward Kennedy holding a meeting with Yuri Andropov's top aid in 1983. The Soviets sought advice from Kennedy on how to deal with Reagan. In return, they offered ideas of how to defeat Reagan in 1984.

It remains a mystery why the mainstream media virtually ignored John Podesta's involvement in Uranium one. Russia donated millions to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for 20% of Americas' uranium. Podesta's brother, Tony headed up the Canadian based company. John later ran Hillary Clinton's campaign.

It is also odd that the MSM has barely mentioned that fact that Russia today is experiencing a huge growth in Christianity. Maybe it's due to general disinterest, if not scorn. After all, their "poster boy," Barack Obama ridiculed Christians as people clinging to their "God and guns!" The Soviet Union was officially "atheist."

To say that the mainstream media has a "double standard" would be an understatement! "An arm of the Democrat party" would be more fitting! Or, as Newt Gingrich coined, "reminiscent of Pravda," the official Soviet Newspaper for decades!

Russians have traditionally gravitated to strong, often brutal male leaders. Whether Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Putin, it was always believed that "tolkoi seela moosheena"(only a strong man) was up to the job. Putin came up through the KGB. His family roots can be traced back to the "Oprichnina," which was Ivan the Terrible's secret police in he 17th century.

Putin, like Trump, is a nationalist. Russians see Trump as a strong man. Globalists such Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have noted this distinction.The mainstream Media, then declares "Nationalist" synonymous with "Fascist."

Well intended Neo-Cons such as John McCain and Mitt Romney correctly pointed out Putin's attempts at suppressing Russian media. To hear Putin's explanation, they were part of the "old Communist order" that continue to promote a failed, "dead ended" ideology.

This rationale is flawed, to say the least and it would never be welcomed in America! It does lends insight into Putin's orientation. Globalists would like the American people to believe that Donald Trump harbors similar aspirations. There is zero evidence that would suggest such! Doesn't matter!

Perception becomes reality! When people hear the same rhetoric continuously, real or made up, they tend to believe it!This is the strategy of the mainstream media. It will continue until they fulfill their objective. Or we, as a country, have a reckoning.

In modern times there have been successful efforts to impose sedition. The most notable was the "Sedition Act" of 1918. It forbade disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language against the United States government, the flag or armed forces that would cause others to view the United States with contempt. It was believed that such dialog would discourage the sale of war bonds.

100 years later we have a different kind of war. And, unlike 1918, we have broadcasting. Not to mention cable. Any efforts to subdue would not only be unconstitutional, but go against what we are as Americans. That the mainstream media has gotten to big is unquestioned. Herein may lie the solution? Could we not decentralize it?

This is an advanced media question. Legally? I'm not sure. They broke up "Ma Bell." Most said that it could not be done.

Stay tuned...












Friday, July 7, 2017

Selling Secession Part V- The Alternative

We have now come full circle!

The question remains, "what would be the alternative to a peaceful separation?" Amazingly, a huge segment if not the majority, of the American population, would favor the alternative.

Television illustrates the daily anguish of the losers. Some Americans still can't accept the 2016 Presidential election results. Donald Trump was never taken seriously by the mainstream media. His own party establishment's begrudging acknowledgement did not go unnoticed.

What Trump has exemplified is the real divide in America. It is not sectional. It is ideological. To categorize it as "liberal versus conservative" is one-dimensional. In reality, it's about "America first." Trump's opposition sees America as part of a family of nations.

In essence, "nationalism versus globalism."

Barack Obama held a simple commonality with the Clinton's and the Bushes: All are globalists. They see our world as interconnected. Trump and what turned out to be an electoral majority, said, "charity begins at home."

The mainstream media is unquestionably in the globalist corner. Only natural are their efforts to demean and discredit those who are not.

Most disquieting is the lack of tolerance held by anyone who defied them! Jonah Goldberg's eye opening book, "Liberal Fascism," unveiled this tendency.

Our country is dangerously divided. So divided that Civil War cannot be ruled out! From California's insistence on harboring criminal illegal aliens to the violence and corruption that symbolizes Chicago, it's apparent that some would be fine with an all out conflict; "Mano a Mano" for the "whole Enchilada!"

Better be careful for what you wish for!

This is no joking matter! There are those so incensed over the 2016 election results that they have openly encouraged violence. Others have actually practiced violence, while advocating sedition. That's right! Opponents to their point of view are heckled, ridiculed and in some cases, beaten. Uhm! Sounds like the infamous "brown shirts" of NAZI Germany! Herr Goebels would be proud!

The differences of the two opposing ideologies is most profound! It is "secular global socialism," versus "Christian Nationalism."
It is, "Open versus closed" borders, "American exceptionalism" versus "the world is flat," and "a larger role" versus "a smaller role" for government. "Climate change" is embraced by one side, scoffed by the other. Same holds true to "energy development."

In the end, a clash of perceptions.

In a clash of perceptions, both sides are right, in their own eyes. The last time a clash of perceptions so stark presented itself was in 1861. The side that wins is the one with the most resources and power. Unfortunately resolve by itself won't get it done! The South learned this truism, at great cost!

Which is why those rioters in San Jose and Chicago should be careful! They may be on the verge of awaking a long sleeping dog! As one Alabaman put it, "if 50,000 rednecks with 12 gauge pumps in one hand and AR-15's in the other, were to show up in those places, it would be over in twenty minutes."

Lookout!

The N.R.A. estimated in 2012 there to be approximately 312 million firearms accounted for. It is believe that there are that many, if not more, unaccounted for. They are believed to be in the hands of 30% of the population! We can guess which persuasion the majority of them represent! It is easily imaginable that if Donald Trump called for "one million" volunteers to defend America, he would probably have that number in 48 hours. Armed and ready!

Now, let us pretend that it is Abraham Lincoln and not Donald Trump who is president...

For starters, Chris Cuomo, Rachael Maddow, and two dozen other journalists would be interned. They would be joined by Jerry Brown, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Rahm Emanuel, Bill de Blasio, Maxine Waters and three dozen other politicians. As was Lincoln's way, Habeas Corpus would be waived!

Trump would not do this, because it is not his way! But, he might have difficulty stemming the long suppressed anger turned joy that would flow from a silent majority that finally said, "no!"

Make no mistake! The left doesn't want this scenario! It would be remembered for the next five-hundred years as the "worst whipping in the history of the world." This is a mathematical certainty. From being satisfied with a peaceful separation, their opponents would quickly demand it all. Because they could take it!

One could expect a massive exodus. Europe and Canada, for those who could afford it. Arkansas sized Uruguay would watch it's population of three million triple in a few months. Even Africa would receive countless applications for immigration.

With the globalists expunged, both from government and media, a new start would be possible. Imagine a constitution missing the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Now imagine adding "English language" and "term limits" amendments.

Foreign policy would be greatly simplified by understanding that this is today, not fifty years ago. We can bring Eastern Europe into the family of civilized nations. We might need to rename N.A.T.O.. "The Coalition for World Peace" has a nice sound to it.

Meanwhile, those who attempted to compromise our great nation in favor of their own selfish agenda, would get their due.

Will it come to this? It might need to! As Thomas Jefferson so gamely phrased, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."










Friday, June 30, 2017

Selling Secession- Party IV

Thank God that I was wrong!

Last year, I admitted that Hillary Clinton would likely be elected president. It seemed that Donald Trump, while infinitely determined, would be incapable of overcoming odds that were somewhere between "overwhelming and impossible."

Secession seemed the only way to save a part of the country that we love. Wow, has the landscape has changed since my last post!

Not to say that Americans are not talking about the ultimate break-up. They are! In fact, Trump opponents have shown an ugly side to them that is unfathomable. But, as the election showed, they are concentrated in the large urban areas. Many "red staters" believe their numbers were inflated, thanks to voter fraud.

In the October 13th, 2016 post, a new map of North America emerged. Today, nine months and a general election later, it is more clear. The biggest difference is the fact that Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota either were carried by Donald Trump, or in the case of the "Gopher state," barely went to Hillary Clinton. Republicans didn't "eek out" Ohio and Iowa. They won those states in landslides. Even Pennsylvania broke for Donald Trump!

So...Let's assume that Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota stay with their lower Midwestern neighbors and Canadian "friends." We now have "Yankeedom with, not 82 million people, but 60 million. We could conclude that Quebec choose to join New York, New England, North Jersey and Puerto Rico in their experiment with Socialism, bringing the t to total population to 68 million. I do believe that "Peoples' Democratic Republic of America," would be a more "catchy" name for this diverse country that would be officially "tri-lingual."

As the original post outlined, "Cascadia," composed of British Columbia, Western Washington and Northwestern Oregon, would number 13 millions and would be the "ultimate Utopia for white liberals."

Which leaves two remaining questions: The first is Chicago.

The "Windy City" is nothing short of a train wreck! As of yesterday, President Trump has decided to send federal help. Which may be the first step toward martial law! Decades of corruption resulting from "one party" rule, has pretty much damned them!

Then, there is California. In the previous three posts, Tim Draper's model of "dividing it into six states" was proffered as a solution. Three of the six would join the "new and improved" United States of America. The remaining three, constituting 23 million souls, would go it alone. Maybe a better strategy would be to (a) "deport all in the country illegally, sans "dreamers," and subsequently make those who remain comply to the new constitution. Which would include the newly adopted "E" amendment.

Let's return to the original distinction between the new Republic and the current one. The 14th, 16th and 17th amendments would be repealed. A new amendment that made English the official language would be added.

Under "E," all voters would be required to pass a fourth grade English proficiency examination, as a pre-requisite for a voter I.D. card.With no 14th amendment, there would be no Phyler v. Doe. In essence, illegals would be unable to drive, vote or tap into the entitlements. With no 17th amendment, Senators would be elected by their individual state Senates.

These measures would allow California to be "saved from itself." Chicago? Perhaps instigation of a measure relieving many of their residents from what they consider, a "lousy lot in life!" The program would be called, "Operation Homecoming."

"Operation Homecoming" would guarantee any resident in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, or any place in America, able to prove that their ancestors were adducted by force from their native lands, "compensation." The federal government would offer $25,000 cash, boat passage and administrative assistance to these persons, in an effort to make amends for previous wrongs.

There would be no alternative proposition. Participants would board climate controlled buses to New Orleans, where they would be given international transportation vouchers, processing assistance and,of course, their cash; in "tens and twenties" if they so chose!

No matter how great we think out nation to be, there are those who simply don't want to be here! Let us give them their wish.

Thus California would remain intact. But, they would be "six as opposed to one." With almost certainly, less voters.

Finally, attention turns to South Jersey, New Castle County Delaware, "what's left of Maryland" and Washington, D.C.. This will be discussed in Part V.



Thursday, October 13, 2016

Selling Secession- Part III

Before we continue on our separation journey, let us examine two points certain to make their appearance: Social Security and the National Debt.

Social Security and Medicare are contracts between the American people and the government. Would not Americans living in departing states be forfeiting their entitlement? It comes down to how the separation is negotiated.

Rick Perry accurately explained the quandary in the first presidential debate of 2012, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." In reality, we are paying as we go. There is no "lockbox" full of cash that we all tap into, even though the program was initially positioned this way.

To facilitate, it will be necessary to continue printing money and making the payments. There have been various proposals over the years. But this has been a touchy issue for politicians. Deferring the discussion to a later time has been the option of preference.

Probably the most popular position would be as follows: "The money was paid into the program in good faith. It was a contract between the government and the taxpayer. That contract would remain in force, regardless of the disposition of the taxpayer."

To simplify, imagine a 63-year-old opting for retirement in Quito, Ecuador. He could expect to receive his entitlement because he paid in to it. It is, in effect, his! That he chooses to reside outside of the country is irrelevant.

There would need to be a cut-off age, perhaps 45 or 50. In all likelihood it would scaled down with younger recipients, such as a 45-year-old receiving less than a 55-year-old.

The existing national debt would fall under the same lines. It would be divided on a equally proportionate basis. In other words, if the separation is confined to half the existing population, or 160 million people, then half of the current twenty-trillion in debt would be assumed.

Many of the departing states will hold huge mineral resources. Nevada and Alaska for instance, are largely owned by the federal government. These resources would subsequently become property of the new republic. A revenue sharing plan, similar to the existing Alaska model, would be implemented for citizens 65 and older.

There is also the question of "what about the federal pensions?" Would the same rule for Social Security apply?"

This thorny consideration best illustrates the reason why so many are ready to separate! For years many of the public sector workers have been afforded much greater benefits when compared to their private sector counterparts. In addition to superior health care programs, they were granted pensions, while the private sector employed 401ks. When the 2008 melt down came, 401k accounts were often lost. Promised pensions remained intact.

There would be disagreements regarding the "extent" of the new republic's responsibility. It's probable that obligations to former federal employees would be honored." This would definitely include military entitlements.

The traditional argument has been that poor states like Kentucky and West Virginia receive "two dollars for every dollar" sent to Washington. In the New Republic, both states would be allowed to take advantage of their vast mineral resources. Overnight, they would be transformed from "ward of the federal government," to "the new Saudi Arabias."

Consumer debt that crossed boundaries is an equally tricky topic. It would be "all but a certainty" that the new republic would defer the matter to the individual creditor and debtor.

Let us finish the map!

Indiana, followed by Ohio would join hands with coal rich Kentucky and West Virginia. The ten, southwestern counties of Pennsylvania are likely to petition to join West Virginia and the five departing Maryland counties.

According to Colin Woodard's map, these mineral rich, Pennsylvania counties are classified "Greater Appalachia," along with all of the Maryland and West Virginia counties. Allegheny County(Pittsburgh) might not relish the thought of a foreign country, literally on it's doorstep. Look for a petition that could keep all of Pennsylvania, west of the Susquehanna, together.

Central and Southern Illinois are comprised exclusively of Greater "Appalachia." Probably half of Ohio and three-fourths of Indiana are the same. These numbers are almost certainly sufficient to bring the "Midlands" into the departure.

In following Woodard's map, the Midlands makes a giant semi-circle, beginning in New Jersey. The semi-circle extends as far west as New Mexico and Colorado, then doubles back through the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. The latter was originally settled by "Scotch-Irish," and later German immigrants who entered the continent through New Jersey.

Are we suggesting that Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin would continue their alignment with the Northeast? Probably! Woodard's map puts all three states in "Yankeedom," joining New York State, New England, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward island. We must keep in mind that these three, Great Lakes states were heavily settled by Scandinavians. History reflects that Denmark and Sweden have always gravitated more to a "nanny state" approach.

Smart money would suggest that New York City and Northern New Jersey, classified by Woodward as "New Netherlands" would join Yankeedom, as well as Eastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, New Castle County, Delaware and what was left of Maryland. The disposition of Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia would be uncertain. Puerto Rico's addition brings the population of this robust, sea faring nation to 82 million.

Chicago's history would suggest that it would join it northern neighbor states. Yet, the vote to dissolve will take place in Springfield. Odds are good that it might opt to join it's neighbors to the east, south and west. Especially, if they were afforded their own individual state!

According to Woodard's map, the north side of Chicago is considered, "Yankeedom." So are the counties north of parallel 41. The same would hold true of the northeastern part of Ohio, historically known as the "Western Reserve."

With the entire lower Midwest intact, the new republic's population has swelled to 235 million souls. This is easily larger than any country in Europe!

Three small but impressive neighbors, beginning with Cascadia, population 13 million would join the "new" United States.

The three remaining Californias, West, North and Silicon valley total 23 million. It is possible that Hawaii might split, joining the new Pacific nation.

Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador and Baffin Island would form a French speaking nation of nine million.

Thus, we now have five North American nations!

The largely "Yankeedom" Northeast could continue it's experiment with Socialism, stressing climate change awareness, nation building and secular globalism.

Cascadia could become the "Netherlands of the West." With it's mild climate, scenic beauty and highly skilled work force, a technology mecca is clearly on the horizon. Approximately the size of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas combined, socially liberal Cascadia would attract intellectuals from all parts of the world.

The remaining Californias might ultimately be reminiscent of the popular Matt Damon movie, "Elysium." Google it! You'll quickly get the picture!

Without question, there would be many Americans who might want to settle outside of their present locale. The decision for admission would be left up to the individual nation.

There would be dissenters. Yankeedom" and the "Left Coast" have both cultural and ideological ties. Over the years, they have exerted control over "flyover America." Together their cumulative population would be 110 million; less than half of the part of the country they have largely controlled.

A good number of Cascadia residents are California "refugees." A union with the more populous California states would not be an attractive prospect!

While social security and pension questions might be difficult, the defense spending determination could prove relatively easy. The "flyover America" states have historically been more prone to support defense spending initiatives.

Selling these states on creating new and improved weaponry would be as easy as selling universal health care difficult! It could be anticipated that firearms manufacturers in the Northeast will be flocking south and west. Renewed interest in the space program is a given. Expect to see numerous public-private ventures emerge, the objective "to further explore and develop the Moon, Mars and beyond!"

The "new" United States of America would include 48 states and two territories. There would be a new focus on the 10th amendment. The constitution would be similar to our existing constitution. Absent however, would be both the 16th and 17th amendments. The 14th amendment's "birthright citizenship" would be defined, as well as the question of Congressional representation made up by "citizens" and not "persons."

Additions to the constitution would include a "sanctity of marriage amendment," and an "English language amendment." There would be a third new amendment mandating a single six-year Presidential term, twelve-year-terms for Congressmen and Senators and 18-year terms for Federal Judges, including Supreme Court Justices."

There would be an urgency to reduce the size, scope and cost of the federal government. This would translate to elimination of the Education, Energy and Commerce departments. Since there would be no Dodd-Franke, there would be no Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

Obamacare would be left behind, replaced by a market based health care system that would encourage competition. The E.P.A. would be more reminiscent of 1975, when it mainly served as an information outlet.

The mere wealth of the "new" United States of America would be mind boggling! Finally freed from Yankee and Left Coast inspired regulations, the nation would forge ahead to unfathomed prosperity. A new confidence, based on attracting global "customers" would replace the notion that the "world is flat."

An experienced chief executive such as Rick Perry would be ideal for a nation deep in agricultural and mineral resources. Fifteen years as Texas' Governor will have prepared him well for the task at hand! The new republic would assume it's role as "the world's supermarket and filling station," encouraging local entrepreneurship.

Due primarily to it's emphasis on creating the world's most powerful military and navy, all overseas bases would fall into the new republic hands via osmosis. This would include all Hawaiian islands, except the big island.

The "new" America will represent freedom and prosperity for independent minded, God fearing Americans. There rests a measure of chance and risk taking in the souls of every one of it's residents. Obviously this America would not be for every American!

The Northeastern America would encompass 22 states and about 82 million citizens. These souls are more group minded and welcome a large, central government to bring ease to their lives. They carry strong principles with the emphasis on the collective. An affordable, government inspired health care system tops their wish list.

Each "America" would present different advantages and disadvantages. Over time, the like minded would find the other. In the end everyone would be happier!

There would be an additional bonus that would come with separation. Each America would have it's own media outlets, conforming to the "no foreign ownership" standard in place today. It would be business as usual for ABC, CBS and NBC. But, their universe would be confined to the Northeast. The other four Americas would have their own national broadcast media outlets.

In short, a "peaceful separation." However unlikely, it is important to remember that the alternative would be an "unpeaceful separation," or an attempt at one...

























Selling Secession- Part III

Before we continue on our separation journey, let us examine two points certain to make their appearance: Social Security and the National Debt.

Social Security and Medicare are contracts between the American people and the government. Would not Americans living in departing states be forfeiting their entitlement? It comes down to how the separation is negotiated.

Rick Perry accurately explained the quandary in the first presidential debate of 2012, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." In reality, we are paying as we go. There is no "lockbox" full of cash that we all tap into, even though the program was initially positioned this way.

To facilitate, it will be necessary to continue printing money and making the payments. There have been various proposals over the years. But this has been a touchy issue for politicians. Deferring the discussion to a later time has been the option of preference.

Probably the most popular position would be as follows: "The money was paid into the program in good faith. It was a contract between the government and the taxpayer. That contract would remain in force, regardless of the disposition of the taxpayer."

To simplify, imagine a 63-year-old opting for retirement in Quito, Ecuador. He could expect to receive his entitlement because he paid in to it. It is, in effect, his! That he chooses to reside outside of the country is irrelevant.

There would need to be a cut-off age, perhaps 45 or 50. In all likelihood it would scaled down with younger recipients, such as a 45-year-old receiving less than a 55-year-old.

The existing national debt would fall under the same lines. It would be divided on a equally proportionate basis. In other words, if the separation is confined to half the existing population, or 160 million people, then half of the current twenty-trillion in debt would be assumed.

Many of the departing states will hold huge mineral resources. Nevada and Alaska for instance, are largely owned by the federal government. These resources would subsequently become property of the new republic. A revenue sharing plan, similar to the existing Alaska model, would be implemented for citizens 65 and older.

There is also the question of "what about the federal pensions?" Would the same rule for Social Security apply?"

This thorny consideration best illustrates the reason why so many are ready to separate! For years many of the public sector workers have been afforded much greater benefits when compared to their private sector counterparts. In addition to superior health care programs, they were granted pensions, while the private sector employed 401ks. When the 2008 melt down came, 401k accounts were often lost. Promised pensions remained intact.

There would be disagreements regarding the "extent" of the new republic's responsibility. It's probable that obligations to former federal employees would be honored." This would definitely include military entitlements.

The traditional argument has been that poor states like Kentucky and West Virginia receive "two dollars for every dollar" sent to Washington. In the New Republic, both states would be allowed to take advantage of their vast mineral resources. Overnight, they would be transformed from "ward of the federal government," to "the new Saudi Arabias."

Consumer debt that crossed boundaries is an equally tricky topic. It would be "all but a certainty" that the new republic would defer the matter to the individual creditor and debtor.

Let us finish the map!

Indiana, followed by Ohio would join hands with coal rich Kentucky and West Virginia. The ten, southwestern counties of Pennsylvania are likely to petition to join West Virginia and the five departing Maryland counties.

According to Colin Woodard's map, these mineral rich, Pennsylvania counties are classified "Greater Appalachia," along with all of the Maryland and West Virginia counties. Allegheny County(Pittsburgh) might not relish the thought of a foreign country, literally on it's doorstep. Look for a petition that could keep all of Pennsylvania, west of the Susquehanna, together.

Central and Southern Illinois are comprised exclusively of Greater "Appalachia." Probably half of Ohio and three-fourths of Indiana are the same. These numbers are almost certainly sufficient to bring the "Midlands" into the departure.

In following Woodard's map, the Midlands makes a giant semi-circle, beginning in New Jersey. The semi-circle extends as far west as New Mexico and Colorado, then doubles back through the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. The latter was originally settled by "Scotch-Irish," and later German immigrants who entered the continent through New Jersey.

Are we suggesting that Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin would continue their alignment with the Northeast? Probably! Woodard's map puts all three states in "Yankeedom," joining New York State, New England, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward island. We must keep in mind that these three, Great Lakes states were heavily settled by Scandinavians. History reflects that Denmark and Sweden have always gravitated more to a "nanny state" approach.

Smart money would suggest that New York City and Northern New Jersey, classified by Woodward as "New Netherlands" would join Yankeedom, as well as Eastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, New Castle County, Delaware and what was left of Maryland. The disposition of Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia would be uncertain. Puerto Rico's addition brings the population of this robust, sea faring nation to 82 million.

Chicago's history would suggest that it would join it northern neighbor states. Yet, the vote to dissolve will take place in Springfield. Odds are good that it might opt to join it's neighbors to the east, south and west. Especially, if they were afforded their own individual state!

According to Woodard's map, the north side of Chicago is considered, "Yankeedom." So are the counties north of parallel 41. The same would hold true of the northeastern part of Ohio, historically known as the "Western Reserve."

With the entire lower Midwest intact, the new republic's population has swelled to 235 million souls. This is easily larger than any country in Europe!

Three small but impressive neighbors, beginning with Cascadia, population 13 million would join the "new" United States.

The three remaining Californias, West, North and Silicon valley total 23 million. It is possible that Hawaii might split, joining the new Pacific nation.

Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador and Baffin Island would form a French speaking nation of nine million.

Thus, we now have five North American nations!

The largely "Yankeedom" Northeast could continue it's experiment with Socialism, stressing climate change awareness, nation building and secular globalism.

Cascadia could become the "Netherlands of the West." With it's mild climate, scenic beauty and highly skilled work force, a technology mecca is clearly on the horizon. Approximately the size of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas combined, socially liberal Cascadia would attract intellectuals from all parts of the world.

The remaining Californias might ultimately be reminiscent of the popular Matt Damon movie, "Elysium." Google it! You'll quickly get the picture!

Without question, there would be many Americans who might want to settle outside of their present locale. The decision for admission would be left up to the individual nation.

There would be dissenters. Yankeedom" and the "Left Coast" have both cultural and ideological ties. Over the years, they have exerted control over "flyover America." Together their cumulative population would be 110 million; less than half of the part of the country they have largely controlled.

A good number of Cascadia residents are California "refugees." A union with the more populous California states would not be an attractive prospect!

While social security and pension questions might be difficult, the defense spending determination could prove relatively easy. The "flyover America" states have historically been more prone to support defense spending initiatives.

Selling these states on creating new and improved weaponry would be as easy as selling universal health care difficult! It could be anticipated that firearms manufacturers in the Northeast will be flocking south and west. Renewed interest in the space program is a given. Expect to see numerous public-private ventures emerge, the objective "to further explore and develop the Moon, Mars and beyond!"

The "new" United States of America would include 48 states and two territories. There would be a new focus on the 10th amendment. The constitution would be similar to our existing constitution. Absent however, would be both the 16th and 17th amendments. The 14th amendment's "birthright citizenship" would be defined, as well as the question of Congressional representation made up by "citizens" and not "persons."

Additions to the constitution would include a "sanctity of marriage amendment," and an "English language amendment." There would be a third new amendment mandating a single six-year Presidential term, twelve-year-terms for Congressmen and Senators and 18-year terms for Federal Judges, including Supreme Court Justices."

There would be an urgency to reduce the size, scope and cost of the federal government. This would translate to elimination of the Education, Energy and Commerce departments. Since there would be no Dodd-Franke, there would be no Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

Obamacare would be left behind, replaced by a market based health care system that would encourage competition. The E.P.A. would be more reminiscent of 1975, when it mainly served as an information outlet.

The mere wealth of the "new" United States of America would be mind boggling! Finally freed from Yankee and Left Coast inspired regulations, the nation would forge ahead to unfathomed prosperity. A new confidence, based on attracting global "customers" would replace the notion that the "world is flat."

An experienced chief executive such as Rick Perry would be ideal for a nation deep in agricultural and mineral resources.Fifteen years as Texas' Governor will have prepared him well for the task at hand! The new republic would assume it's role as "the world's supermarket and filling station," encouraging local entrepreneurship.

Due primarily to it's emphasis on creating the world's most powerful military and navy, all overseas bases would fall into the new republic hands via osmosis. This would include all Hawaiian islands, except the big island.

The "new" America will represent freedom and prosperity for independent minded, God fearing Americans. There rests a measure of chance and risk taking in the souls of every one of it's residents. Obviously this America would not be for every American!

The Northeastern America would encompass 22 states and about 82 million citizens. These souls are more group minded and welcome a large, central government to bring ease to their lives. They carry strong principles with the emphasis on the collective. An affordable, government inspired health care system tops their wish list.

Each "America" would present different advantages and disadvantages. Over time, the like minded would find the other. In the end everyone would be happier!

There would be an additional bonus that would come with separation. Each America would have it's own media outlets, conforming to the "no foreign ownership" standard in place today. It would be business as usual for ABC, CBS and NBC. But, their universe would be confined to the Northeast. The other four Americas would have their own national broadcast media outlets.

In short, a "peaceful separation." However unlikely, it is important to remember that the alternative would be an "unpeaceful separation," or an attempt at one...