Our existing U.S. Constitution; sans the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments! Now, let us add two new amendments.
The first would make it unlawful for politicians to exclude themselves from any law or mandate passed, such as the Affordable Care Act. In short, any legislation passed would be required to include everyone!Senate and Congressional term limits would be included in this legislation.
The second would be the proposed English language amendment discussed in my book.
Make sense? Maybe! Unfortunately, this would be close to impossible under our existing framework.
In a previous post a "Red State Convention" was proposed. The primary objective would be to reform or replace the Republican Party. Yet many suggest that we would be "whistling Dixie!" Are we past the point of no return?
Assuming that we are, what would be an alternative? The country is clearly divided. In fact, it has not been this divided since 1861. But this is 2014. We have television. We have the Internet. Unlike 1861, this is not the "age of innocence." Nobody relishes an "1860's style" bloodbath!
A clash of perceptions exists in America.
One side wants more and bigger government. The other wants less and smaller government. A surprisingly large number of Americans will accept fewer invidual liberties. Arguably more profess their "willngness to die" for more individual freedoms.
A part of America wants to build a wall around itself, leaving world problems to chance. Another part of America strives to police the world, profiting along the way. Still another faction says, "let's go the proven route of peace through strength."
One faction believes that human induced global warming is today's "most pressing issue." The other side concludes that man made global warming is "a hoax."
There are differences on economics that stretch beyond party lines. Most prolific is the decades old "Keynesian versus Supply Side" debate.
Then there is the "Centralist versus Federalist" argument. Likewise crossing party lines, one group advocates a large, Washington, D.C. based government. The other seeks to return more decision making to the individual states.
Cynicism exists in America to a greater degree than at any time in history. People have lost faith and trust in their political leadership. There is a growing belief that the present system breeds corruption. Newly elected believers depart for Washington with the best of intentions, only to succumb to a "culture" that naturally proliferates with tenure.
Our "American experiment" is relatively new, when compared historically to other societies. It has survived much, including a Civil War. Yet from that event, many of the original premises that served as benchmark for the nation's founding were lost.
In convening on a national scale to discuss the future of the country, we would be allowing the states to step forth and determine their individual destinies. Are we talking secession? From a certain point of view we are! Running parallel to this paradigm is another definition. It is called "Contraction."
Semantics? Actually not! Secession equates to individual states, one by one, breaking their bond with the Union. Contraction entails a "majority of states, bonded by similar standards, aspirations, ideals and economic goals, "excluding" states harboring ideologies considered malignant to their general welfare."
This is indeed something new! And yet, you could see it coming. Take a moment to note the election results over the past two decades. At first glance, a line does exists in America. With closer study, these lines become more defined by rural versus urban.
Politicians seeking to do away with the electoral college never mention the impact on smaller states. They know that with the right "tweaking," namely abolishment of the electoral college, they can consolidate power in larger states, holding large cities. Rural America would be left "high and dry," reverting to a lower standard of living with less say in lawmaking as compared to Metro areas. Such exists in Russia today.
When legislatures of individual states convene in their state capitals they will decide if they are "in or out." Even recently "blue" states such as Illinois and Michigan will decide that "being left behind" would result in potentially "cataclysmic" circumstances. In essence, "better to be "in," excluding or "contracting from" one or more counties who differ ideologically.
This may be an over simplification, albeit not by much. Midwestern states such as Illinois, Michigan,Wisconsin and even Minnesota are often "one or two counties" away from flipping. This is confirmed by recent Gubernatorial elections. You could add Pennsylvania to the list! Remove Philadelphia and Delaware counties and Mitt Romney would have won the state decisively in 2012.
Impossible? Think again!
The majority of the nation's wealth is in the ground or on top of it. Under the new framework, land previously owned by the federal government would revert back to the individual states. The national debt would be divided proportionately. Any and all banking debt owed to to banks not in the "New America" would be repudiated.
Radical? Perhaps. But, in full study of the Federal Reserve and the money that has been stolen from the American people over the past 100 years, the idea becomes more plausible. As G. Edward Griffin pointed out in his book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," Northeastern and Europeon banking interests have accumulated trillions at the expense of the American people. Time for payback is at hand.
The West, or most of it, would predictably opt for inclusion. California's impossible preference for "six states," would suddenly become possible. Eastern Washington and Oregon's dream of their state of "Lincoln" would be within reach. Large states such as Texas and Florida might become North and South, doubling their representation in the Senate.
Crazy? One Ohio Economist explained, "had the TARP money gone directly to pay off conforming home mortgages, it would have resulted in a giant stimulus. Instead, the money was given to the banks, who used it to buy other banks or simply stuck it in their vaults."
It has been estimated that there is sufficient petroleum reserves to serve our current populations' needs for "2,041 years." We have approximately 27% of the planet's known coal reserves. The U.S. possesses more natural gas than any country in the world. We have the earth's finest farm land. Why not set our sights on being the "world's supermarket and filling station?"
Instead, our malignant part has voted to stifle and regulate, benefiting the privileged and the well placed only. A new America brings such practice to an abrupt end!
Insane? What I consider insane is the eight or so globalist banking cartels holding a collective net worth that exceeds 100 trillion U.S. dollars! Interestingly enough, nobody knows for certain "how" they amassed such wealth!
Where would be the starting point? Obviously it must begin with a convention. From there, the most visible bi-product of Barack Obama's true aim; "to weaken America," would be pointed out and corrected. This translates to rebuilding the military, as Ronald Reagan did in the eighties. It would likewise send a clear signal to all Americans that any question regarding the "legality of contraction," would not be determined by "Philiadelphia lawyers!"
We would then make Social Security and Medicare permanently solvant, Healthcare really affordable and Education both affordable and attainable. Considering the nation's overall wealth, this should be a "breeze!"
Of equal significance would be the implementation of a "dollar that was worth a dollar." In essence, "a dollar that was 100% backed by commodities." The old Federal Reserve Note might adequately serve our Malignant counterparts. But "cranking up the printing presses" would no longer be an option in the New America.
How many souls would make up the "New America?" Estimates would span "betweeen 240 and 260 million." A future immigration direction would target applicants based on qualification, as is done by Canada.
Those currently in the country illegally would be given four distinct choices. (a) Service in the military, (b) Service in the Peace Corp, (c) Service in the Engineers(a option that will be discussed in a future post) or (d) Deportation.
In reality, the New America would need every hand! Freed from the fetters of government, there would be a boom like never in history. The "desire to get ahead," would replace the current "let's line up at the trough for our share of the boonies."
Yes, concerns would abound regarding "what would happen" in large, "blue state," cities such as Chicago and Detroit. Would there be riots? Or would the state militias, aided by common interest, new America states join to suppress any uprisings.
An option would be to "hermetically seal" problematic counties, cutting all ground transportation. Inhabitants would be allowed to immigrate to parts of the Continent not included in the new America. Or, they could participate in "Operation Homecoming," a concept that will be discussed in a future post.
There would be protests from "naysayers" throught the transition. And predictably heavy migration from Americans outside the New America, yearning to be a part of it.
The real litmus test would amount to "who loves America and what she truly stands for." It goes back to the decades old pronouncement: "America. Love it or leave it."
In this illustration, those loving the America our founders envisioned would effectively amputate the parts seeking to compromise it.
Post a Comment