Saturday, December 22, 2012

Perfect Society- "Marxism's Ultimate Threat!"

Most conservatives have become accustomed to the normal response to any thinking outside of the standard liberal line.

Opponents are generally classified as "racists, bigots, homophobes, Nazis, far right fringe elements and lunatics." As with Communists in the former Soviet Union, anyone speaking inconsistently with their doctrine is "psychologically unstable and in need of help."

This will certainly be the case for advocates of "Perfect Society." And for good reason! Perfect Society represents the polar opposite of Marxism. It scorns class warfare. Without class warfare, Marxists have no principle issue, no starting block. "Social Justice" becomes nothing short of "legalized theft!" That's why it's a mathematical certainty that Marxists will greet Perfect Society will vehement vigor!

Let's look at the fine print.

Perfect Society states that all men are equal. But, there is more. Everyone is higher on the socio-economical ladder than the slave. It doesn't matter who you are. It matters not how much money you have. Who your parents were is irrelevant. Your skin color means nothing. So does your country of origin. Your creed makes no difference. And, your religious preference is likewise of no significance.

The single question asks, "are you a free person or are you a slave?"

Wait a minute! We don't have slaves in 2012! Or do we?

The slaves of today don't call any one person "master." But, they are as fettered as any in history. They are those who decided that it is easier and more profitable to live as a ward of the state. They are the "career entitlement recipients." Or, to put it more bluntly, "career welfare recipients." They owe their livelihoods to their master. Their master is the government.

Perfect Society mandates that these career entitlement recipients be taken off the voting rolls. In this manner, all who are not on those rolls are elevated to a rung higher on the ladder. It makes possible for a distinction that separates the working poor from the entitlee. The minimum wage worker, unlike the entitlee shares with the wealthiest the right to express their preference at the voting booths.

Revisionist historians have derided the Antebellum South in many ways. But they never pieced together why it successfully functioned. What made that society work was, in fact, that it was perfect. There was no class warfare. There was only the knowledge that everyone had the ability to rise within society. It generally came down to hard work and ingenuity. But the opportunity always beckoned.

When a Marxist is confronted by such a paradigm, they know that they have met their match. Innately they realize that if this reasoning ever takes hold in America, they will be eventually squeezed out. Theirs in a legacy of failure, of suffering, treachery and deceit. The report card reflects 135 million dead in the previous century. Their forlorn hope is based on one single twisted notion.  "Communism failed previously because it was attempted in the wrong country."

Marxists believe that the right country is the United States of America.

Where are these Marxists? Look no further than the White House.

Many have figured it out. There are others who continue to look for resolutions. They truly expect the Obama administration to react not unlike previous Presidencies. They are wrong. Dead wrong!

Don't expect cooperation in the best of American tradition. These people aren't interested in anything except transforming the United States into a Marxist state. Those, who still can't see it should invest time in reading Russian history. It's all there. And make no mistake! It's upon us!

What can we do at this juncture? We have two options.

The first is to disqualify Obama for the presidency. There is evidence that he isn't eligible based on a number of factors. This is a subject matter for a different post. What is important to note is that there have been continuous efforts to bring the question to light. At odds is a self preservationists media uninterested in taking the "bull by the horns."

The second and perhaps the best option is a "peaceful separation" of the states. This creates the opportunity to implement Perfect Society. True, many good Americans have an issue with secession. It is a frightening path. But, it offers boundless opportunities.

Obama's constituency is not stable. In fact, it is highly suspect, in not unpredictable. Mention "civil war" to the average single, 38 year-old-woman with children and the response will be, "work something out. Quit being so stubborn! We don't want a civil war!" They're certain that "hope and change," as in "fundamentally changing America," isn't going to work if a "war" is part of the package! These "vote once every four years" women would be the first to defect.

Gay Americans would quickly withdraw to the shadows!

The Union leaders might stir up a fuss. Until, they found out that they were being abandoned in droves by their membership!

It's possible that some minorities would take exception. But, they might change their tune when they realized that they were agreeing to their own "legalized slaughter." At that point they will finally do what they should have done already: "Bid self serving opportunists such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, "adieu."

Perfect Society makes all of these outcomes possible.

In the end, Obama's coalition of "Americans without conviction" would crumble. Perfect Society would provide the long awaited answer to the question of "am I significant and relevant?"

It's important for true American Patriots to take this next crucial step. We must be willing to fight for our freedom. Obama will go as far as we allow him to go. By invoking Perfect Society into the discussion, firmly comparing it to his Marxism, we will be giving the American people a choice. A real choice!


Saturday, December 15, 2012

Jeffersonians Must Present Concrete Distinctions

The question of "third or new" political parties has again surfaced.

There are thousands who predict that the Republican Party will "go the way of the Whig Party." But, if they do, what would replace them? And if the states embark upon a "peaceful separation," what would be the draw to gain support; other than disenchantment with Barack Obama? In short, "how" would secessionists convince those unhappy with present day America that theirs was the better option?

Entering the "Jeffersonians."

In a previous post some specifics were unveiled. The primary groups composing the new party were identified. "Constitutionalist Republicans, John F. Kennedy Democrats and Libertarians" account for a large part of the country. Most feel that they are the "odd men out.". However, in hammering our a platform, there must be more substance. Simply being disgruntled Republicans or Democrats isn't enough. What would make the Jeffersonians a viable alternative?

Two proposed  additions to the Constitution, "Perfect Society and the "E" Amendment" would chart a long range course. There include commonalities that all three factions can wrap their arms around! But what about now?  How are the immediate questions addressed?

Can we find common ground on issues such as Tax Reform, Health Care, Clean Air and Water, Banking, Defense, Immigration, Globalism versus Protectionism, Energy, Foreign Affairs, Faith versus Secularism, Gay Rights and the Second Amendment? And, if so, what are they?

Let's return to our constituency. Evaluate the three groups. Then, think about the spiritual founder, Thomas Jefferson. Where would he stand on these issues?

The next step is deciding "where the most votes are" regarding every one of these questions!

Let's start with perhaps most downtrodden segment of our population in recent times: "Single heterosexual fathers." Has anyone noticed the raw deals that "Dads" ofter get in a custody cases? Most people are aware of it. Yet, there looms the prevailing paradigm:  "Is it right to take children away from the mother?" Unfortunately equal rights is a double edged sword!

The Civil Right Act of 1968 placed women on the protected list. And, for good reason!  Flagrant exhibitions of discrimination based on gender were rampant in America. General logic surmised "women shouldn't be hired for management positions because "they are too emotional." Rationalization typically reflected the much used chauvinist excuse of , "what if she gets pregnant?The business can't go on hold, waiting for her to punch out a kid!"

Since that verdict, things have changed. Women have made huge advancements in the work place. However, a pre-1968 axiom has changed little. Women are still considered to be the most essential caretakers of children.

Some sympathetic men maintained their conclusion that, "you couldn't really take small children away from their mother, even if she wasn't that great of a parent and the father was a decidedly better one." Yet, growing numbers of single fathers are asking, "why?" As in, "why is it a general assumption that the mother is entitled to automatic custodial parent privileges? Do not equal rights apply?" 

Most Americans today, Republican and Democrat believe that women should have equal access to an education, profession, opportunities for advancement in management and income. However, shouldn't single Dads enter a court room on a "level playing field" when facing a custody battle?

Adding "single heterosexual fathers" to the protected list specified by the Civil Rights Act of 1968. would be a defining position, differentiating Jeffersonians  from Republicans and Democrats. True, the more liberal Democrats who advocate Gay Marriage would be offended. And, it's probable that the most staunchly conservative Republicans would oppose the addition on "philosophical grounds."

Such a measure would be both non-partisan and non racial. Uniting a core segment of the population around a common concern is the first step toward solidifying a constituency. Even men who have never married or have had children would be drawn to the Jeffersonians, on this one issue!

The marriage rate has dropped alarmingly since 1980. Men are simply not wanting to marry. They see little incentive. If they have children, their wife can take them at a whim along with any estate that they might have accumulated. Women are perceived to be more "angry" these days. In some instances they complain that they are "tired or bored" with their husbands and consequently divorce them on those grounds! The proposed alteration of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 could impact this trend!

Republicans hold the advantage with men nationwide. Democrats hold the advantage with women, especially younger women and gays. It is doubtful that Jeffersonians would lose many Republican voter if single, heterosexual fathers were added to the protected list. However, it is definite that they would pick up minorities, especially black males! And this must be an objective for the Jeffersonians!

There are other distinctions to be reviewed in future posts.

The key consideration is gently coaxing good people away from the poisons of Obama's Marxism. It won't happen through the Republican party! And it won't come about merely from a promise of tax cuts! There must be substance, meaning and a vision of something better and more inclusive.

Sunday, December 9, 2012

Jeffersonian Standard at Odds with Present Day America

Tea Party Republicans continue to flounder at "why does the Republican Establishment have 2008 and 2010 memory lapses? And, "why do they treat us like red headed stepchildren?"

Maybe it's because they never reached out to the Tea Party. If memory serves me correctly, the Tea Party reached out to the Republican Party. Perhaps it was only place to go. As time progresses, we can see the vast differences between what we are and where they want to go. So what's next? A third party?

Yes. But, before we go there, we must remedy a much bigger problem. It is called "what used to be the United States of America."

For those who continue to bury their head in the sand, hoping that tomorrow will bring a new congress, court, president, bureaucracy and media, here's a shot of ice water! It is gone! To return to where we were, even in 1988, will take 50 years. By 2016 that 50 years will be 100 years. If not 150 years. If at all!

We need to create a new political party. But first, we must create a new United States of America. Not the current United American States, which represents Washington D.C.'s ideal. But a new country that is based on individual freedoms, personal responsibility and a government that serves the people, not visa versa!

I call it, The Jeffersonian Party. It is based on spiritual founder, Thomas Jefferson's famous proclamation, "When people fear government, you have tyranny. When government fears the people, you have liberty."

Nice slogan! Who will argue with it? Let's puts some "meat" on the bones!

We'll start with a quick review of the 10th amendment. Wow! A lot of stuff that we're handling from
Washington should actually be done at state level! Let's go down the list! Education, Energy, Environmental Protection, Commerce, Justice and more. Could the states handle it? Under the constitution, they have no choice!

Let us move to personal responsibility. Shouldn't everyone shoulder their share? Wasn't that what made "Perfect Society" work? Because everyone would have the right, if not the obligation, to contribute, they also earn their chance  to express their preference at the voting polls. Those not electing to shoulder their share of the burden, wouldn't!

Why is it important for everyone to be literate? Why do we need to have one language and not a number of languages? Does it really matter? Couldn't we place language preferences on the voting ballots and decide if we wanted more than one language? Or, which language that we did want, for that matter? It's about "turning sheeple into people." It goes back to individual development and betterment.

Deep in the "nooks and crannies" of 1770's politics reveal a dispute between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. It centered on banking. Jefferson wanted the government, as in congress to oversee the money supply. Hamilton thought best for that role to be reserved for outside entities. As in English, French and European entities.

This is an over simplification. But it does suggest a split which found John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Paine on one side, while Hamilton,George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Adams took the opposite position. Ironically, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Paine were not Freemason's. The others were.

So what does this have to do with a "new" United States of America? It could have alot to do with it, if states elect to separate!

A large part of the worlds debt is held by European and Northeast United States banking interests. Included are mortgage debt and student loan debt. There is always a danger of defaults with any major change in governments. Especially when many of the debtors feel that they were treated unfairly.

This is compounded by a central government that is not trusted due to it's lack of fiscal discipline. Complicating matters further is the worry that government is too big and getting bigger. Most see government as an overbearing force in everyday life. Now, it plans to shove Obamacare down the throats of a reluctant America! New Obama inspired regulations mount with each passing day. There is a feeling that American nationalism has been given a backseat to globalism.

It gets worse! There is a growing belief  that Barack Obama may not have won the election. His eligibility to be president continues to be questioned. And, evidence is mounting that he may be a "real live, in the flesh, Marxist!" Imagine that! A Communist, who cheated his way into the White House, who was never eligible to begin with!

Who would want to stay with such a person, let alone have them as their president? In a previous post we answered that specifically: "Career Welfare Recipients. "Sheeple." Unions. Socialist Ideologues. Wily Opportunists."

What about salt-of-the-earth Americans from Pennsylvania and Tennessee? We're not confining this discussion to Tea Party members. If Obama was found to be ineligible or if Obama's DNA confirmed the he was the son of someone other than the father originally claimed, what would they say?

This is what members of the Tea party must ask themselves. Would they listen to the "mushy milk toasters," stick their heads in the sand, ostrich style, hoping things work themselves out? Would they listen to career politicians, certain to assure them that there is no other way?

It is likely that we will never know who this president truly is. But it is a certainty that he will, as he promised, fundamentally change America. The question is, "are we going to sit around like a cattle going to slaughter awaiting the inevitable?

We need leaders. We need men and women who reflect the principles of Thomas Jefferson. We need visionaries. We need patriots holding the highest levels of courage and conviction. Are they out there?

Saturday, December 1, 2012

Charting a New Course Through Peaceful Separation

Disenchantment with the Obama Administration is universal with 50% of the U.S. population. The divide has never been greater and is worsening. Yet, many have gone no further than basic enmity for the President. For a movement to have legs, a "better way" must be outlined, accompanied by a vision that cultivates hope.

The Republican Establishment will not contribute to any secessionist aims. They are part of the problem. On paper, they represent the opposition to Obama's machine. Behind closed doors, it's actually reminiscent of Soviet style party democracy. Some bold words, some reassuring rhetoric and finally, a "consensus."

The alternative course is quite different. In a previous post, three distinctions were introduced. They began with a "national right-to-work law" that would restrict collective bargaining rights for public sector employees. They included, "Perfect Society," the destroyer of class, race and ethnic warfare. And thirdly, a proposed constitutional amendment, which would both make English the official language in America laying out new parameters for immigration.

When viewing these three proposals in unison, it is easy to see how they would offer a clear alternative to the present Obama course. Let's start with "Perfect Society."

The "Perfect Society" theory has it's origin in the antebellum south. It's premise is "no matter how rich or poor that you are, who your parents were, what country that your ancestors immigrated from, what your skin color might be, what religious preference you held," you were one rung higher than the slave. Revisionist historians wrongly equated "slave" to "race." In reality, this isn't accurate.

Modern application of "Perfect Society" would amount to disenfranchising all who (a) did not receive social security, (b) did not receive disability, (c) did not receive a pension, (d) had not received any form of entitlement over the previous two years, (e) did not own two acres of land and (f) could not show proof of paid employment at some time during the past three years. Wow, who did we miss! That sounds like nobody is excluded!

Actually,  there is one group that is excluded. They are the "career entitlees." In short, "career welfare recipients." These Americans have made a career out of beating the system. They learned that the "free way" is better than the "low pay way!" From an economic point of view, it is. When you are receiving generous housing subsidies, A.F.D.C., food stamps, and medical cards, you are likely better off than working for $10 per hour. When you add valuable extras such as Pell grants, free lunches in the public schools and cell phones, the disparity broadens!

The aim of "Perfect Society" is not to pull the rug from under these Americans! It would simply take them off the voter rolls. By doing so, you are telling the guy who has the $10 per hour job, struggling to pay his bills that he does have something that the guy taking the easy route doesn't have: "a voice!"

Obviously the Obama administration would vehemently oppose such an action. In effect, it's going straight for the jugular of one of their key constituencies. "Perfect Society" states that "everyone is relevant and significant." But, those who are allowing the rest of us to carry them, will not have a voice in collective decision making. Therefore, like the slave, they are on the "bottom rung" of society.

The goal of the "E" Amendment, outlined in "E" is for English, is to "turn "sheeple" into people."

Making English the official language in the United States of America is the goal of several foundations. But none of these foundations have truly grasped the essence of  what they are attempting to achieve! By making English the official language, we are binding the nation together. Unfortunately, there are those who oppose it for political reasons. Even though 87% of the nation favors it, they have effectively blocked implementation on a national level.

A new republic would have no such barriers! Instead of striving to keep Americans functionally illiterate in English, it would "mandate passage of a fourth grade English proficiency exam as a prerequisite for a voter I.D. card." The objective: Assimilation. Only through assimilation would these Americans be able to have a true shot at the "American Dream!" Suffrage should provide the necessary motivation!

"Sheeple,"(The Russian word for "Sheeple" is "Pleb yea ih") are easier to control and manipulate. They are much easier to influence. They are more susceptible to the politics of class warfare. When there is a direct focus on their individual improvement, they become more productive as citizens. It begins with education. However, better educated people tend to be much more difficult to control and manipulate.

The new republic would focus on individual development. The mandate would challenge every member of society to live up to their potential. Obviously, the Obama vision doesn't accommodate individual achievement. It promotes division through the mythical desire for "diversity."

A new republic would base immigration on "getting the best possible  immigrants." While the alternative path promotes "quantity," it would focus on "quality." True, this closely mirrors the Republican plan. But, in truly grasping the "E" plan, there is much more.

Should the new republic adopt the "E" immigration plan, several new ideas will come into focus. Starting with a "re visitation" of the 14th amendment.

 The 14th amendment stipulated that any person born in America was granted citizenship. There is evidence that it was referring to the recently emancipated slaves. After all, it did not include the native Americans when conceived! Since then, many children have been born to parents illegally in the country. Under the "E" plan, "at least one parent would be required to prove that they held no less than permanent resident alien status."

"E" would create a "priority points" system. In addition to education and English proficiency, "age"(applicants under 30 would receive preference points) and country of origin(immigrants coming from N.A.T.O. countries would receive preference points) would be included in the mix. Applicants from terrorist countries would not be accepted in the new Republic.

Under the "E" proposal, any man, woman or child currently in the country illegally would be given a path to citizenship upon passage of a 10th grade English proficiency exam. However,  unlike the D.R.E.A.M. act, they would not have access to entitlements. A form of service would be required for all. The path would be probationary in nature. But it would insure that those already assimilated would be allowed to remain.

There would be an initiative to curtail identity theft. It would start by emphasizing the importance of individual privacy. A quick way to reach this goal is to place "individual privacy ahead of profit." By prohibiting "off shore outsourcing of any job requiring all or part of an Americans' social security number," a major step would be taken!

Fortune 500 companies would downplay the value of such a standard! They would argue that "most of these jobs would pay less than $10 per hour." This is true. However, what is important is knowing the actual recipients of these jobs!

Who would they be? Mostly 62-66 year-olds, awaiting qualification for Medicare. Many would have already opted for early Social Security. An $18,000 per year, banking job with health insurance would not compromise their entitlement! And, business would gain access to an experienced, consistent and punctual work force!

Right-to-work is an issue that should be determined at the state level, in accordance to the 10th amendment. However, forcing workers to involuntarily contribute to political candidates not of their choosing is simply wrong! Under a proposed "national right-to-work" law, the practice would be prohibited.

The public sector now enjoys significantly better pay and benefits than the private sector. They also wield an inordinate amount of power! In Obama's America, they are allowed, even encouraged to hold the people they are supposed to be serving, hostage! The new Republic would take a lesson from Wisconsin's historical stand and restrict public sector collective bargaining rights!

These would be the three principle distinctions between the America that we see that is currently unraveling and a new Republic. Questions such as abortion, prayer in the public schools.,gay rights, marijuana legalization, and health care would be determined by the individual states.

The question of "money" and how it would be raised to fund the new Republic will be addressed  in a future post. Important now, is determining what kind of alternative those departing states would aspire. These three standards would change the landscape dramatically.

Our founding father established a Republic. Somehow, along the way, we have forgotten this fact! You hear "Democracy" frequently on the tongues of both Democrats and Republicans. Perhaps they need to consult history!

These three measures put forth would insure that a new Republic would always be just that: "A Republic." The time for watered down, meaningless compromises is past. The day of career politicians reaching a consensus is gone. Americans need to individually ask themselves "which vision" best illustrates their America. When they have their answer, they can concentrate on reaching it.

Whatever that vision may be, it will begin at the state level.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

Peaceful Separation Must Define Specific Alternatives

Americans continue to search for answers.

The November 6th surprise served as a reminder that an organized opponent aided by a partisan media can net surprising results. Perhaps the Republican Establishment was so certain that they would win that they forgot how the game is played!

A split in the party was predictable. Mitt Romney should not have been the nominee. It was foolish to even consider a candidate opposed by 70% of the party. But the GOP Establishment did! They will pay for it!

With four years of Barack Obama looming ahead and no guarantee that his likely successor, Hillary Clinton will be beatable in 2016. a decision must be made. The Establishment position would be to "recalibrate our message, attempt to broaden our tent and hope that the economy worsens to the point that they will finally be forced to blame Obama and not Bush."

Sound familiar? My next guess is they would return to the old practice of "attempting to out Democrat the Democrats." In short, nominate another moderate. As if, 1996, 2008 and 2012 didn't happen!

What if a new alternative was presented? Such as "real health care reform, real banking reform, a real energy policy, real immigration reform, college tuition cost relief and offshore outsourcing curtailment?

In a "peaceful separation" of the states, the departing states are concluding that the federal government in Washington, D.C. is broken beyond repair. In short, "if something is unfixable, you destroy it or divorce it." To some, this sounds reprehensible!

Civil War historians generally agree that the real reason for conflict was economic related. The Northeast wanted to industrialize. The South wanted to continue to freely buy consumer goods from France and England. Protective Tariffs came into play during the Jackson Administration. The "nullification crisis" ended with a compromise.

This was in 1832. The question of slavery continued. 99% of Southerners did not own slaves. The system was becoming obsolete due to sheer expense. Historians concur that it would have likely vanished by 1880.

Congress quietly passed the Corwin Amendment March 2, 1861. For those who believe that the South's fear of"forced Emancipation" caused the war, read the Corwin Amendment! The South wanted liberation from the Northeast. Southerners today believe that the Northeast started the war, illegally invading peaceful states. From a legal point of view, their accusation is valid, thus making reparation claims legitimate.

Midwesterners knew about the Corwin Amendment. After all, it's author, Thomas Corwin was an Ohio Congressman. Throughout the entire conflict, there were mixed emotions held throughout the Midwest.

On one hand, Midwesterners resented the South's readiness to break the union. At the same time they were sympathetic. Like the South, the Midwest was largely agrarian. They felt that they were at the mercy of those same Eastern banking and railroad interests. Many wanted to stay out of the war. There were large numbers of Midwesterners who thought that the Northeast had "dragged them into the war." Their proclamation became a nationwide echo. "It's a rich mans' war and a poor mans' fight."

1913 brought more exploitation. When a cartel of Northeastern and European bankers met at Jekyll Island, Georgia the country was experiencing a boom in community bank growth. The large banks had watched their share of market dip below 40%. This was unacceptable. A corrective measure was conceived. The end result was the Federal Reserve.

Throughout the 20th century Americans from coast-to-coast watched their dollar buy less. They were asked to pay for World War I, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Great Depression. Amazingly these Northeastern U.S. and European Banking cartels used every manipulative tactic to steal from the American people. Their tool was "inflation." A read of G. Edward Griffin's, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" reveals in detail the actual progression of our banking system. It provides additional evidence as to why a "peaceful separation" is not only a good idea, but an imperative one!
Obviously, the motivation for a "peaceful separation" is there! But for the movement to move beyond "coffee talk" and into the next phase, clear distinctions from both Republicans and Democrats must be made! It cannot be an assembling of "right wing Tea Party interests." Nor, can it be composed of "ingenious and slightly unethical corporate interests who want to destroy the labor movement."

For "peaceful separation" to succeed, a completely different vision, unlike anything that has come from Republican or Democrat camps must emerge. And it must be specific. This was Mitt Romney's problem! Anything vague will never gain legs!

Most Americans are "middle right." They want the Government to be there when they need it. But, they don't want it to be overbearing to the point of dominating their lives. Americans favor a more simplified federal income tax plan. This equates to something with lower rates and less loop holes. We are not talking about "gimmicky." We're talking "straight forward and uncomplicated."

This is why I strongly favored Governor Rick Perry's proposed plan. It's easy to understand and administer! Let's face it! Not everyone can afford a "big eight' C.P.A. firm!

Everyone is in agreement that we have a health care problem in America. Or rather, a "health insurance problem!" Obamacare certainly isn't the answer. In fact, this piece of partisan legislation alone is grounds for "peaceful separation."

An thoughtful alternative would begin with an attempt to make it a "bi-partisan" alternative. In a nutshell, we would instigate a "one-percent payroll tax" that would be used exclusively to establish a catastrophic pool. This "CAT POOL" would not be accessible until the claim surpassed $10,000. At that point, it would pay 80%. When the claim reached $50,000, the co-pay would be reduced to 15%. At $100,000 it would cap at a 10% co-pay.

The plan would be available to everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions. There would be no restriction on where people could buy their health insurance. If John Doe in Lima, Ohio wanted to purchase his families health insurance from "Sun Valley Health Solutions" in Pocatello, Idaho, he would have that option. As the final piece of the compromise, "loser pays tort reform" would be included in the proposal.

With the vast coal, oil and natural gas reserves that would be developed, it is possible to assist states on programs currently in place in Texas and Louisiana. Louisiana's "T.O.P.S. program grants free, four-year public college and university tuition to all students holding a 3.0 grade point average or better." Texas has recently instigated a "S10,000 four-year tuition plan" for all students.

There are some good ideas that could be gleaned from the old system. Namely Social Security and Medicare. Both are "pay as you go." Obamacare greatly threatens the latter! The former can be stabilized if money that is paid into it, actually stays in the account.

Housing and Urban Development has contributed greatly to expanded home ownership. Most Americans want this and expect this. It should be maintained and improved upon. There is also the question of homes that are currently "underwater." The 2008 banking bailout was mismanaged. Money that was targeted at distressed homeowners never got past their mortgage holders. In fact, some banks used this interest free money to buy other banks. Did anyone recall what J.P. Morgan Chase paid for Washington Mutual?

What if, a new republic mandated that Chase's good fortune be "passed on to their mortgagors?"

Three specific proposals could completely change the face of America. The first is a "National Right to Work Law."

Right to work, in accordance to the 10th amendment should be left up to the states.
But should all union members be required to participate in funding political campaigns? What if they don't agree with the union's choice of candidates? As far as the public sector is concerned, we must remember that these employees are meant to serve the public, not hold it hostage! A ban on collective bargaining privileges for public sector employees would eventually bring public sector wages,salaries and benefits in line with the private sectors. 

The "American English Unification Amendment," the topic of "E" is for English, would make English the official language in the nation. It would strive for 100% English literacy, eliminate voter fraud, and curtail identity theft. The immigration plan introduced would create a path for citizenship for all who could demonstrate proficiency in English. It would likewise lay out a specific criteria for new applicants.

The anti-identity theft measures would start with an offshore, outsourcing ban on all jobs that utilized all or part of an Americans social security number. The "100% English literacy goal," would mandate bi-lingual education in American public schools. In addition, an intense Vocational Education option would become a focal point.

The third "proposal" would be "Perfect Society." This is a measure that has proven to eliminate class warfare. It is the polar opposite to Marxism which has gradually taken over the Democrat party. It's objective is simple: Create a society that is based on "where you are on the ladder and encourage you to move to the next rung." The Marxists emphasize, "how much your neighbor has." Whereas Marxism stresses "social justice,"  the "Perfect Society" theory emphasizes "individual accomplishment."

"Perfect Society" would implement a new suffrage standard: "To vote, you would need to (a) receive social security, (b) disability, (c) a pension. (d) show proof of not receiving any entitlement over the previous two years, (e) own two acres of land, (f) show proof of compensated employment at anytime over the past three years."

Sounds like just about everyone, right? Actually those missing are the "career entitlees." The idea is not to harm anyone who has made a career on receiving government relief! The question is, "why" generations of families continue receiving entitlements? The answer is simple: They have learned that it's often a "better deal" than finding a job with nominal compensation!

We're not talking about throwing these people on the streets! But we are proposing that they be removed  from the voting rolls! Upon doing this, we effectively place them at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Thus a minimum wage worker holds a loftier spot on the ladder than the entitlee. Because, unlike the entitlee, the worker can participate in the electoral process.  This is "perfect society" in modern form. 

 There would be other ideas and proposals. But disgruntled Republican and Democrat voters could jointly embrace such a beginning.

It is probable that neither the Republican or Democrat Establishment would support any of these proposals. They go too much against the status quot. Yet, this isn't about the preferences of career politicians! This is about a "reset" in America. When people begin asking the question of "would this be better than what we have now." the stakes would escalate.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Reaching out to the Midwest

A peaceful separation's first hurdle will amount to "overcoming the expected RINO rationale" of "staying the course, weathering the storm." Forget it! That was the past four years!

True, there will  be extended RINO rhetoric intended to debase a new direction. But conservatives must remember one simple fact: "Since George H.W. Bush won election in 1988, for what amounted to Ronald Reagan's third term, there has been no real grass roots initiative to return to what elected the "Gipper" in 1980.

These "Republicans" conservatism begins and ends on Wall Street. They have given us Mitt Romney, Chris Cristie and Reince Pribus. While they may be well intentioned, they will not attract the numbers necessary to make the movement a success.

The key is as simple as recognizing who we are. Every child growing up in the South during the sixties gradually became aware of the War Between the States and it's outcome. Even today, a grassroots organization known as the Southern National Congress makes the argument that that 15 Southern States should go their separate way. The case carries some credence! A Southern Nation that included eighty million residents would be reportedly, the "fourth richest nation in the world."

The question raised, however, is what  has happened in America since Appomattox? We know that the countries population has jumped from 31 million to 310 million. There  have been a number of states added. There are also millions essentially in agreement with these Southern standards(de-emphasizing Washington, more power to the individual states) who don't live in those states. Would they not be welcomed into a movement that attempted to recapture our founding fathers' ideals?

Most definitely! Let's start with the Midwest. Outwardly, Southerners and Midwesterners share numerous commonalities. There are two basic differences. One relates to history.

 Midwesterners did not grow up in "perfect society" framework. In the Midwest, anyone could be at the top or bottom. Unlike the South, there were often levels of society based on ethnicity.

When the North industrialized (years ahead of the South), it welcomed a  tide of European immigrants.  These newcomers often kept together for a two, three, four generations or longer. To a degree, this retarded assimilation.  While these immigrants held a strong desire to "Americanize,"  the existing residents often categorized them based on ethnicity.

The newcomers also proved to be more vulnerable to exploitation by big business. They welcomed collective representation. This translated to unionization and the rise of big labor.

Due to it's depressed status after the War Between the States, the South did not attract immigrants in the same numbers.  The residents took pride in their past, even relishing the pain of a world that had departed. This individual pride, and to an extent, the lingering "perfect society" gene, made them less open to outside organization.

Because the South was more rural and held an economy that was primarily agrarian, people tended to be more scattered, living in remote locales.  By 1900, the average Southerner could trace their family origin in America back 75-100 years. In the North, thanks to a huge influx of Southern and Eastern Europeans in the 1890's, it was likely one-third of that. It might also be noted that with few exceptions, such as Louisiana, most Southern ancestors came into the new world speaking English.

Like the South, the Midwest was most Agrarian. The earliest settlers were English. Soon, German immigrants outnumbered them. Scandinavians joined the Germans in settling the Upper Midwest. They were followed by a waive of Polish, Italian, Hungarian, and Irish newcomers.  A large number of them came through Ellis Isle.

While states like Ohio and Illinois produced arguably the greatest contributors to the Union war effort, there was mass opposition in the Midwest to the war. Opponents were labeled "Copperheads," and came mostly from Ohio and Indiana. Copperheads contended that the Eastern banking and railroad interests had "dragged them into the war."

Following the war and well into the 20th century, many Southerners migrated to the North. Much was funneled through Kentucky. Today large numbers of people living in Ohio, Indiana and Michigan can trace their family trees to south of the Ohio River.

Those families who migrated north brought two things with them.

Their general collective held less class and ethnic distinction. They also harbored an ingrained distrust for the central government in Washington D.C . They learned that there was a kindred spirit held with their "new neighbors." Midwesterners resented "the East" speaking for them. Washington D.C. and Wall Street had became synonymous with "the East."

They also realized that these "new neighbors" held comparable, if not even higher moral and ethical standards. By the 1950's the majority of residents in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa boasted German heritage. They lived beneath their means, were tidy, prudent, practical, ethical and trustworthy. Many were Lutherans and were strongly influenced by the Churches teachings.

The second great distinction between people south and north of the Ohio River relates to "bonding" with Washington, D.C. While, Midwesterners don't agree with a lot that has come out of the nation's capital, it's still the nation's capital. Their perception of Rebel armies "firing at the flag," was considered nothing sort of traitorous! In Southern eyes, the only thing illegal about the Civil War was the North's invasion of the South!

All may come down to a grand reconciliation!

For a peaceful separation to succeed, the South must convince the Midwest that they share a common objective: to reclaim a lost nation. That won't be easy! Deep in their psyche, Midwesterners have the original position that the South cared little for the Union and only wanted to destroy it. It may stem from a German notion that allowed a Hitler to rise and flourish: "My fatherland, right or wrong."

This is specifically the area where Southerners must reach out to their Midwestern brothers and sisters. They must patiently convince them that this isn't a matter of "the South doing it again!" It totally relates to "stopping the advance of Communism in America."

 The "practical side" of Midwesterners. may provide the pivotal opening. The East and West Coast have run up huge debts and now expect the rest of the country to pay for it. Then, there are enormous advantages of the richest states banding together to form "a new and improved United States." And, there is no assurance that the "realignment" might not cross the Canadian border!

Of course, Medicare and Social Security would come up. So would the massive resistance of unions to such a development. Midwesterners are acutely aware of the Obama administration's pandering to the unions! Most will tell you that they are "not married" to either! But, where is your plan? What would be different, other than a lot of "oil, coal and natural gas booty?"

A new Republic would be required to clearly differentiate it's vision from Obama's.  Especially when attempting to convince "sober, methodical and slightly sceptical" Midwesterners!

"Perfect Society" might sound "too theoretical" for these Americans!

Midwesterners like things concrete; things that they can touch and see immediate results. Such as, "A National Right to Work law" that would "restrict public sector collective bargaining right while outlawing involuntary collection of union dues." This is tangible!

"English only voting ballots and drivers license testing" are tangibles. So are voter "I.D. cards and proficiency exams."  Many Midwestern retirees can still remember the stories of their grandparents efforts to learn English. Their conclusion will be, "if they could do it, so can everyone."

Measures intended to curtail identity theft are tangible. To know that offshore workers have access to the social security numbers of Americans is alarming. The Midwest has been ravaged by offshore outsourcing. Any proposed legislation that would outlaw the practice of "offshore outsourcing" will get their attention. Fast! A proposed solution that creates private sector jobs from identity theft prevention will be applauded.

Allowing prayer of all faiths and religions in designated parts of public schools is another winning distinction. Especially when comparing Obama's "Atheist" alternative. This is definitely a "tangible."

A "constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between man and women," is also a tangible.

The final deal maker will come with the expectation that "the country will eventually put itself back together, only better."

California is broke. They are becoming a "Western hemisphere version of Greece." It is a mathematical certainty that they would accept practically any constitutional revisions offered by a new Republic in exchange for a bailout. It is also highly probable that half of the state(like that part south of the 37th parallel) would break away early.

Ditto for Pennsylvania, west of the Susquehanna and New York,  north of the 43rd parallel of latitude and west of the 75 parallel of longitude. And so the procession would go!

It would be greatly accelerated by a change in the national media. Obama would no longer enjoy his propaganda machine also known as, NBC, ABC and CBS. Foreign ownership of Broadcast media is not allowed. People in the new Republic would immediately benefit from "the truth" in broadcast media, courtesy of those networks new owners!

It will start with the South, Plains and Mountains. However, for long term success which would amount to piecing together the states under an amended constitution, the Midwest "buy in" is crucial.

 Maybe the most crucial element is the understanding that this is not a Republican or Tea Party initiative. There have been some great ideas come forth. Because of the vast wealth held by the new Republic, many wonderful advantages will be available to all Americans.

Such as Louisiana's "T.O.P.S" program, which provides free tuition to all high school graduates holding a 3.0 G.P.A. or better. Texas' new $10,000 four-year college cost is a brilliant idea! Tax simplification has been on everyones wish list. So has real health care reform.

The argument: "Wouldn't it be better to share the benefits directly with our people than allow Obama to simply blow it on government, political cronyism and associated corruption?"

A new republic amounts to a new beginning. But we must make certain that we have a visible direction. The Midwest has always been the "backbone" of our nation. They can serve as a counter balance to any potential extremism.



Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Perfect Society Replaces Concessions With Acceptance

Forget the idea of Governor Perry coming out to lead any kind of Secession movement!

He is living on a plain much higher than the average disgruntled Republican.  Chances are he was deeply insulted by the display exhibited by fellow party members in last years primary. If he wasn't he should have been!

The Tampa Tea Party debate contributed greatly to Barack Obama's re-election. When the tuition tax waiver came up, Rick Perry defended his and the Texas legislatures action. From a 10th amendment point of view, he was justified. From a mere practical standpoint, there was nothing else that he could have done!

The response demonstrated by Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, not to mention Governor Romney was what the Tampa Tea Partiers wanted to hear! It scored well with conservatives. Even my neighbor asked me "why was Rick Perry so liberal?" But it wasn't liberalism. It was pragmatism. He and the Texas legislature were attempting to turn the fruits of  federal negligence into an asset. Perry's actions and defense of them were not lost on Hispanic voters. This fact should be remembered.
The federal government has failed to show any leadership on the immigration reform. They have gone through the motions, especially when election time neared. But, there has been nothing produced other than amnesty proposals.

 Every poll has indicated that "a better economy" outranked  "immigration reform" in the Latino community. That was why Rick Perry captured 44% of the Hispanic vote in the 2010 Texas gubernatorial election!

The Republican party, however, may be moving toward liability status. There are reports that Latino voters are "afraid" of Republicans. That's cause for some concern.!The question becomes "which" Republican Party?

It could be the party of Mitt Romney. You know, the "get in line and wait your turn," position that advocated e-verify. Perhaps it is the Tea Party's GOP that booed Governor Perry when he pleaded with them to "have a heart." regarding the tuition waivers. Either way,  the report card was delivered on November 6th. Only  27% of Hispanics broke for the GOP !

Common sense would suggest that "either Republican party" would be viewed with scepticism by
Hispanics. Especially those questioning how they would be perceived in a new Republic. It could go either way!  An offshoot of Tea Party narrowness or non inclusive Romneyism would be greeted by thumbs down! Yet a republic with "perfect society" tendencies, as practiced by Texas and Governor Perry, could yield a favorable response! 

Both parties are good when it comes to pandering for votes. "Throw some bones here throw some bones there!"  Democrats have perfected this methodology when dealing with the Black community! But what about something that truly matters? Such as general acceptance?

"Perfect Society" as outlined in the November 10th post, described the norm in Southern society during the antebellum era.  Hispanics were, first and foremostly Southerners. In fact there was little reference to ethnicity, other than those made to foods, music and architecture. Pride came from the knowledge that even a person of limited means, originating from a modest background, held the same power at the voting booth as the richest citizen.

The American English Unification Amendment, if adopted by a new republic, would strongly appeal to Hispanics.  The mandatory second language requirement, beginning in third grade would virtually guarantee preservation of both the Spanish language and cultural heritage.

This marvelously enriching directive would have the same effect on all children! It would hold true for young minds embracing French in Metairie, Louisiana, German in Cincinnati, Ohio or Swahili in Atlanta, Georgia.

Six years allows for a "slow accent" into the basics of a language. Students focus on history, geography and the culture of the people who speak the language. As children learn vocabulary, tenses and sentence structure, they are simultaneously introduced to transformational grammar. Thus begins the journey of teaching our children how to think. Upon completion of the eighth grade, our students will have mastered not one but two languages! As compared to many of our "dumbed down" kids of today, they will be brimming with ideas!
Why is this important? It's about developing our children. This begins with "deepening" of our children. For Hispanic children it starts with "knowing who they are and where they came from!" And, above all, being proud of it!  
Governor Rick Perry has always connected with Hispanics.  Maybe it because they have never been anything but Texans in his eyes. Much may be explained in his roots. His ancestors were products of the Perfect Society.

Would he favor the "E" Amendment. He might. He has never been one to say that something couldn't be done! The Texas public schools under his watch have outperformed most union dominated  schools in the north! It would not be surprising to see him embrace "E"!

It is about results.  The Governor is currently  focused on a "$10,000 college degree initiative" at Texas colleges and universities. Nine have signed on thus far. This lends insight into his priorities. Affordable college tuition benefits everyone! Especially those trying to climb the socio-economic ladder.

Rick Perry passionately describes the importance of "the dignity of a job." He doesn't reference ethnicity. It's all about "Texans."  He doesn't merely talk. He delivers. 

Previous accomplishments should be the barometer  regarding anyone being considered for a major leadership role. It cannot be about a political party. In fact, a new republic may start with no political parties!
That may actually be healthy! There are Republicans and Democrats who have grown tired of being forced to march, lock in step with the same "leadership." It is painfully apparent that both parties are not meeting the needs of their constituents.

What's unique about Perry is that he has experienced membership in both parties. Prior to his departure from the Democrats, he managed Al Gore's Texas primary campaign. Some Republicans still see him as "a Democrat at heart."  Democrats for their part, saw Perry in 1988 as a "boll weevil." Like many Southern Democrats, he switched parties when it became evident that the party's leftward drift was permanent. Through this transformation, two things remained consistent: Perry's focus on his constituents, his own people and his belief in "states rights."

In short, Governor Perry epitomizes leadership. This isn't about a particular group of people. Nor is it about a political party. It all has to do with a return to the original course laid out by our founding fathers.  It manifests why he could be the ideal "father" of a new nation. Or, more specifically, a preserver of the original American ideal.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

"Perfect Society" Provides Ideal Positioning Statement

The South's almost forgotten "Perfect Society" theory introduces an argument that has actually been on the tongues of Americans for decades.

Before we get ahead of ourselves, let us review the actual concept. In the antebellum South, there was a simple axiom: "No matter how rich or poor that you were, no matter who your parents were, no matter what country your ancestors immigrated from, no matter your skin color, no matter your religious preference, you were one rung higher on society's ladder than the slave."

At first glance, this theory would appear to be an anachronism. But not so fast! In reality, we do have contemporary "slaves" residing in the United States of America, thanks to President Lyndon Johnson! His  "Great Society," creation of the sixties has since nurtured generations of entitlement recipients.

This is a kind way of describing chronic welfare receivers. They live in a "cradle to grave" dependency on government for their means to survive. They are essentially "wards" of the state. When you rationally distinguish these modern "wards" of the state, there is little difference from the actual slaves who were prevalent in the antebellum South.

What made the antebellum South's "Perfect Society" truly a "perfect society" stemmed from the ability to vote. Everyone, except the slave had the right to vote. It is here that revisionist historians get off track in referencing the "three-fifths" compromise. This related to representation in Washington. It was a purely political bone thrown to the Southern States. It had nothing to do with the actual effect on the non-slave population which is what we are addressing.

The effect resulted in blurred ethnic lines. It equally translated to more religious tolerance. And, it blunted class resentment. Every citizen always knew that they were not on the bottom of society.

You saw this especially manifested in Louisiana. Anyone who has spent time in the Bayou State will be amazed at it's ethnic diversity. The original settlers received land grants form the King of Spain. Then, the French took possession. Parts of New Orleans looks as if they could be located in France. Eighty miles up the Mississippi River is Baton Rouge. Baton Rouge is French for "red stick," a fitting name for a city that boasts some of the largest Red Oak trees anywhere.

Along the Mississippi River, beginning in New Orleans were large settlements of Italians. In fact, Baton Rouge today has more people from Italian decent that French decent. There were also large numbers of German immigrants. West of the Achafalaya basin,  are the Acadian French. These people originally settled in Nova Scotia, only to be eradicated by the Queen of England. Unlike the French on the east side of the basin, who came directly from France, the "Cajuns" spoke a different French, an older French that was used in Paris in the 1600's. It would be comparable to English speakers today, using words like "thee" and "thou."

There were also unique people of color. "Sabines," who resided in Sabine Parish were essentially part French, part Spanish and part African. "Redbones," were  mostly French, partly Native American and generally one-fourth to one eighth African.

People in the North part of Louisiana mirrored the "Scotch-Irish" in Mississippi and Alabama.

Religious lines were clearly drawn. In the North, people were Protestant. From Alexandria south, they were Roman Catholic.

With diversity such as Louisiana's, ethnic and religious confrontation would have been predictable. Not to mention the fact that some of the most wealthy Americans lived in Louisiana. They included Judith H. Benjamin, a practicing Jew, who owned a large plantation and scores of slaves near St.Francisville. Benjamin was Jefferson Davis' Attorney General.

Amazingly, there was little! Ethnic lines were practically non-existent in Louisiana. Especially in comparison to other parts of America during that time! People were "Louisianans and Southerners first!" Even today, the Governor of Louisiana is the son of immigrants from India.

What gets lost in history are the facts that many of these "people of color" voted, were slave owners, and  fought for the Confederacy! This should provide sufficient evidence regarding the real reason behind the War Between the States!

Same held true with the Cherokee planters in Eastern Oklahoma. The United States Government had resettled them in brutal fashion from their homes in North Carolina. But they survived and even thrived! Like people of color in Louisiana, the Cherokee and other native peoples owned slaves and heeded Confederate general, Albert Pike's call for volunteers. In the end, native Americans sent dozens of regiments to the Confederacy.

Oklahoma's eventual statehood was still 45 years into future. However, all writings conclude that had the wars outcome proved different, statehood and suffrage would have been greatly accelerated. 

In Texas, the original Anglo settlers came from Tennessee and Kentucky. They intermarried with the local Mexican population, taking the Catholic faith. Their children were referred to as "Texicans." This was shortened to "Texans" after Texas' admission into the United States in 1845.

With the rush of newcomers from the deep south, Texas gradually took on a flavor that more closely resembled Alabama and Georgia. But the Hispanic influence was maintained. And with it, a common classification and a general understanding of the spirit of Texas. It has been said that "Texas isn't merely a state. It is a state of mind." Today there is a common respect held by Anglos and Latinos. Perhaps the term, "Tex-Mex" says it best.

It may be that in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma that the "Perfect Society" was most vividly manifested.  These three states provide the ideal "map" with which we may charter the destiny of a new Republic.

Their ancestors blurred racial, ethnic, religious and income lines through their "Perfect Society." It was their "benchmark." We can point to this success as the counter balance to a Marxist inspired movement most recently demonstrated in the 2012 presidential election. "Perfect Society" is the polar opposite of "Marxism and Leninism." The primary position taken by the Marxist and Leninist is "class warfare." Barack Obama expanded the divide on racial and ethnic grounds.

Marxists present "social justice" as the term for one group having more than another group. "Social Justice" justifies taking from one segment of the population and giving it to another.

"Perfect Society" contended that all members of contributing society ranked the slave. It mattered not how much money they had or how much they made! Because, "even if your income and means were modest, you were always significant and relevant due to your ability to influence the electorate." This bond superseded any ethnic or racial differences.

History is full of surprises and revelations! Yet, how would "Perfect Society" be applicable in contemporary America? Was not slavery abolished in 1865?

Actually it was re-introduced in the 1960's courtesy of President Johnson and his party. Today, it lives. In fact, it's members are key Barack Obama constituents!

Contemporary "Perfect Society" provides the ideal positioning statement for a new Republic. Unlike, Obama's "United American States," our "United States of America" would deny suffrage for all who had not participated in the work force over a certain period of time.

Naturally, we are not discussing Social Security or Disability recipients. They paid into the system and earned their entitlement. We are not talking about veterans or retired public sector workers. We are also not including those who, through tragic circumstances, such as a death of a family member, needed the safety net.

 The entitlement systems exists for all of us. However, there are those who are not retired, disabled or faced with an unforeseen tragedy who have found that the entitlement system is a "better deal." In short, the benefits of the safety net outweigh those offered with a return to the work force!

Much has been written on welfare reform. There have been bi-partisan efforts to bring it about. In "Perfect Society" rationale, "those who choose to not return to the work force, would not participate in the electoral process." They essentially accept their place at the "bottom" of society. They are "contemporary slaves" who are dependent on government relief for their livelihoods.  

What does denial of suffrage for career welfare recipients have to do with "blurred ethnic lines, racial lines or religious lines?"

Everything! Everyone who participates or has participated in the work force votes. Those who haven't, won't! It's quite a distinction. It essentially places everyone, whether they be a corporate C.E.O., small business owner, retiree or a minimum wage worker on a highway construction gang as "one rung higher" in society than the career welfare recipient.

 Never mind where you came from, or your skin color or religious preference or your income! The point is, there is always someone lower on the scale than you! Because you can vote. They cannot.

Arrogant liberals would scoff as such thinking! True, it would never make it out of congressional committee. But we are talking about Obama's America. In a new Republic, we are starting afresh. Anything is possible.  The verdict might be surprising.

There is a huge segment of the population that works from dawn to exhaustion. They feel that they have been passed by and are relatively insignificant. They receive no entitlements. But they pay the same prices for gas at the pump, food at the supermarket and electricity to heat their homes.

These Americans, often referred to as the "working poor" would overwhelmingly support a society where their voice was placed on an equal plain with the wealthiest members. They would draw comfort in knowing that there were those who didn't share that distinction.

This is the "perfect society" in modern application. Liberals would dismiss it as "right wing rubbish." In reality, it it the destroyer of Marxism. When people are capable of seeing themselves as "not at the bottom," the thought process turns to advancing to the next level. This is the true essence of America. In Marxist thinking, there is only jealousy and resentment, "coveting" what the other guy has.

History has proven countless times over that this is a flawed, failed notion.        


Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Decision Time for Conservatives

Bill O'Reilly put it best: "Obama promised people a lot of stuff!"

So it went. The cagey president and his camp put together a brilliant campaign. They built a coalition around two basic groups: (a) The "bought and paid fors," and (b) those who had "no skin in the game." Then, they turned on a competent, yet "difficult to identify with" Republican challenger and pushed all of the right buttons. It worked.

We could write chronicles about why Mitt Romney might have trouble winning the general election. True, he was as able as could be found. But "able" and "electable" aren't synonymous. The majority of the party didn't support him in the primaries. There was and will be continued resentment for the manner that the Republican Establishment shoved Mitt Romney down the throats of conservatives.

 Romney was graciously accepted and supported by all party members. In fact, it looked good for the Massachusetts Governor on the eve of the election. When the votes were tallied, the original concerns surfaced.

The Election may have been lost in a Tea Party debate last year. When Texas Governor Rick Perry attempted to defend his state's decision to grant in-state tuition to children of illegal aliens, the true face of the party was revealed. Perry's candidacy never recovered. Governor Romney saw it as opening and took the contrary position. It helped him win the nomination. But he paid the price on November 6th.  In short, his hard line position on immigration turned off many who would have ordinarily voted Republican. 

Republicans had little margin for error. Demographically, the nation is changing at warp speed. Leaders like Perry and Jeb Bush were quick to note this. It is my belief that either would have defeated Barack Obama in the general election.

Bush wasn't interested in running for President. Unfortunately for Perry, the same problem that plagued Republicans in 2008 struck! Two "blue states," Iowa and New Hampshire determined the nominee. Had the initial primaries been held in Arkansas and Wyoming, he would have wrapped up the nomination by the end of February! 

Sadly for Republicans, this wasn't the case. A flawed primary system resulted in their nominating the wrong opponent for Barack Obama.

So, we are now staring into a  frightening abyss. We can do what Republican Establishment types would suggest and "hope" that Barack Obama will do an about face. Or, we can live with the sobering reality that our nation as we know it is doomed. When we accept the latter, it becomes easier to take steps toward reversing 2012's calamity.

Not since 1861 has the nation  been as divided as it is today. We are divided on three core issues: Right-to-Work, Health care and Energy.  No middle ground is in sight. We can quietly acquiesce. Or, we can resist, changing the outcome of the election. A strong case can be made for the latter.

Barack Obama did everything humanly possible to divide America. He built a constituency around racial minorities, gays, unions, public sector employees, and angry liberals. His methodology was "class warfare." He had unwavering support from a mainstream media that redefined "bias." His agenda is the most radical in history.  We can live with it. Or, we can withdraw from it.

Any constitutional scholar will attest to the fact that "secession is legal, under the constitution." But, could it really happen?
Looking closely at the "nayers," we see those same Establishment Republicans who blew the 2012 election.  Tea Party members might see it differently. Ironically, the step of a 'peaceful separation," might be surprisingly easy!

This isn't 1861. We do not live in the "Age of Innocence." Americans are not going to endure an 1860's style bloodbath! Obama's supporters are a combination of "educated idiots, social misfits, wily opportunists, and rabble." They know that they would be no match for the 50% who voted for Mitt Romney!

Furthermore, these 50% who supported Romney represent 90% of the gun owners. Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton are keenly aware of this.

Therefore, if the states, one by one, elect to withdraw from the Union, little challenge will follow. True, there would be some bluster on the part of Obama. He might even threaten the departing states. But, he would know that if a confrontation came, he would be on the wrong side of history.

Actually, the advantages for a new Republic are far greater than most imagine! In looking at the November 6th electoral map, it's is highly probable that all states that broke for Mitt Romney, plus Florida, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico would come together. This amounts to 27 states. There is an excellent chance that Nevada plus California, south of the 37th parallel would be 28th and 29th.

 Most of the nations farmland and natural resources would be in their hands of 160 million people. They would be joined by approximately 50 million "immigrants" from the Obama held states. Perhaps half that number would head north, in search of Obama's gifts and freebie's!

The greatest benefit for departure would be "leaving behind the gorilla," also known as the massive Washington bureaucracy. We could save Social Security and Medicare. We could provide tuition help for our college students. And, we would be delivered from the "monsters," AKA Education, Energy and the E.P.A.!

Some would ask about establishment of a banking system. Enter still another benefit! Globalist bankers, headquartered in New York and Europe have systematically stolen from our people for the past 100 years. It began with the advent of the Federal Reserve. "Inflation" was their tool.

The new Republic would insist on a "repayment plan.' It would start with repudiation of all home mortgage and student loan debt owed to the Eastern bankers. For those who owed nothing, federal land grants would be awarded.

What about the military?

This is the potential "wild card," that merits some consideration. After the previous War Between the States, attention was given to insure that the existing soldiers could not merely resign their commissions. Would they fight for Barack Obama in the event that he ordered them to invade departing states? 

Nobody truly knows! Firing on Americans would be difficult. For starters, it would be unconstitutional. But this president has never been deterred by the constitution! What would be a greater problem would be sheer numbers. The military would be hopelessly outnumbered by an armed opponent. Even with the world's finest technology, it would be difficult. Not to mention politically dangerous. Many nations would applaud the departing states. Smart money would suggest that a large number of men and women in the armed forces would desert, returning to their home states.

Who would lead such a "peaceful separation?

We would need a multi-talented group of Patriots, beginning with a president who had extensive executive experience, military experience, and energy experience. Equally important would be the ability to implement the south's "perfect society theory," discussed in a previous post. The new Republic would adopt the Confederacy's "one, six-year" presidential term and "line item veto."

There would be an immediate push to commence construction on a railroad that would connect Montana to Alaska. Most are unaware of the provision made during World War II that allows the United States to build a railroad on either side of the Alaska Highway at any time in the future. It would be important to connect the "Last Frontier" to the rest of the Republic by rail.

Odds are the new Republic would return to the Gold Standard! With the E.P.A. now part of a "foreign country," there would be no impediment toward extracting the 750 billion dollar gold find at Bristol Bay!

 A constitutional convention would be held. Key leaders from the states would formulate a government that would be "10th amendment focused and fiscally responsible." It's goal would be to "establish a new standard for human development."

Five years into the future, the new Republic would likely be the richest nation in the world. It would largely resemble Texas, with strong, self reliant people who would be best educated on the planet.

The "neighbor to the north and west," Obama's America,  would mirror Greece. 


Saturday, November 3, 2012

Election Outcome Could Spawn Surprising End Result

Republicans and the majority of Independents are anticipating a Romney victory Tuesday night. Defiant Obama supporters and a partisan mainstream media are saying, "not so fast!" So, what if they prove to be correct?

Every conservative in America dreads the thought of another term for Barack Obama. As Newt Gingrich put it, "a win for Obama would vindicate the president, freeing him to fully implement his agenda." This indeed would change America forever.

To many, this wouldn't be altogether bad! The promise of "social justice" resonates with a large part of the population. Unfortunately, history has proven that such a methodology is "fools gold." Class warfare has always been the primary Marxist catalyst. It sounds comfortable and reassuring, even fair and just. Yet, beneath the fleece are the steel prongs of a declining standard of living. For everybody!

Bill Clinton has barnstormed the country, spewing his "globalist, poor white trash" rationale on "why" the president should be given another term. President Clinton can be reassuring. His warmth and overly simplified message is reminiscent of Will Rogers. Behind it, however, is the "same old, same old." Fifty years from now, Bill Clinton will be remembered as a "mediocre to poor president, saved only by his willingness to compromise with a Republican Congress and Senate." Today, unfortunately, people tend to be swayed by him! How much? We'll find out Tuesday night!

The voter fraud question is already coming into play. Now they are talking about the voting machines and the question of "correct calibration." If we have a close election as so many are predicting, it could be cause of actions not totally unexpected. As in, confrontation. No matter the outcome, one side will be unhappy.

This election has exposed the growing divide in America. It didn't happen overnight. Any other nation in the world might have experienced a revolution in 2000. 2004 was close. 2008 was not. 2012 is different. The winning candidate in 2008 is seeking re-election. Most Americans have concluded that Barack Obama has proven to be "left" of the moderate that he represented. The question that remains: "Was the true Obama so far to the left that he lost too much of the middle to hold on to the White House?"

It would seem that these moderates hold the keys to the presidency. Pundits recognized them early, stating that Mitt Romney would especially appeal to those "mushy Republicans, leaning Independent," who resided in the suburbs of Detroit and Philadelphia. Experts suggest that they are in play. Hence, the last minute TV buys in those markets.

This would be a notable ending to perhaps the most vicious political campaign in history. "The Republicans resisted pressure from their own party conservatives and nominated a moderate. The Democrat incumbent refused to move to the center, after originally positioning himself as just that: a centrist."

With the writing clearly beginning to show on the wall, there is one last question: "Can the loser gracefully, graciously accept defeat?" My guess is, "probably not!"

Voter fraud is already on the tips on many tongues. If it comes down to two or three contested states, look out! Conservatives in energy states are becoming comfortable with the thought of a peaceful separation of the states. In fact, the more they think about it, the better it looks!

Hurricane Sandy briefly returned geographical awareness to much of the nation. We tend to forget how much of our population is pressed in the Northeast corner of America. We also are reminded how many states are represented here. Some have large populations. Most have small populations and minimal resources.  All have two U.S. Senators.

When America is divided by energy states and non energy states, we get a different map. It's surprisingly consistent with an agricultural and non-agricultural map. These two maps pressed together creates a valid question: "What would American look like, without our non-energy, non-agricultural members?

We should now turn to both an electoral map and a House and Senate map. Get the picture!

Preserving freedom is a never ending endeavor. The vision imposed by Barack Obama is scaring a lot of Americans. It's growth of government without end. Our debt continues to spiral out of sight. There are calls for the United Nations to become more involved in Americas' affairs. And, when looking at the presidents power base, our attention immediately turns to those same, non-energy, non-agricultural states.

Without them, the balance of power drastically shifts. To make matters even more interesting, a large portion of the nation's debt is held in these states. Like Hurricane Sandy, it has the makings of a perfect storm!



Friday, October 26, 2012

"E" Amendment would Showcase Vitter's Proposal

The amendment process does not require participation from the president. Therefore, when discussing passage of an amendment to the constitution, it merely needs to go through House and Senate. The difficult part is gaining ratification from 37 of the 50 states.

The "American English Unification Amendment" as outlined in "E" is for English would appear to have sufficient support for consideration.

87% of America favors English as the official language. 71% of the nation favors voter I.D. cards that would include the actual picture of the person who's name appeared on the card. These are two of the highlights of the "American English Unification Amendment" AKA the "E" Amendment. But there is more.

Louisiana Senator, David Vitter proposed changing Congressional representation to "citizen based" from "person based." The constitution defines "persons" and not "citizens." Vitter objects on the grounds that "citizens only" should be the benchmark for determining representation. His argument is not without merit.

Shouldn't representation be based on actual citizens? Most Americans are not aware that "persons" are the basis of determining how many Congressmen states are allotted. It has always been population based. True, these non-citizen persons are not allowed to vote. But they are included when tabulating the number of Congressional seats each state may hold.

Specifically, if Vitter's proposal were adopted, California would lose five seats, New York would lose two and Illinois would lose one seat. Gaining states would be Oregon, Nebraska, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Texas and either Montana, Tennessee or Florida. Senate Democrats who opposed Vitter's idea pointed out correctly that all eight seats that would be transferred are currently occupied by Democrats.

Vitter's plan is included intact in the "E" Amendment.

There is no way to know exactly where those new districts would fall. But when looking at the gaining states, chances are, they would ultimately end up in Republican hands. Was this Vitter's ultimate goal?

Probably not! The question becomes, "should we allow only citizens to influence our legislative decisions? You would think so! If it were otherwise, wouldn't we allow non-citizens to vote? Republicans are quick to accuse Democrats of fast track amnesty, just in time for elections. Perhaps they have a point!

The "E" Amendment jumps into the thick of Vitter's argument. Not only does it propose picture I.D. cards as necessities for voting, but it also clearly affirms the Senator's position. House seat allocation will be based on citizens, not persons.

Vitter's idea would become in full focus when the proposed amendment went back to the states. It is expected that California and New York would oppose the amendment. But they are only two states. North Dakota and Alaska would have equal say. Both would be certain to ratify the "E" Amendment.

There are other provisions included in this proposed legislation. With Republicans winning more governorships, the chances of ratification grow with each passing day. A House and Senate majority could be a reality after the election.

It is clearly time to begin discussing the 'E" Amendment.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Obama, Romney and "English as the Official Language." Where both candidates would stand and why

Would Mitt Romney support the "E" Amendment?

Would Barack Obama support the "E" Amendment?

A Chicago probate lawyer shared his perception with me. He had met Barack Obama and was a strong supporter. He believed that the President would support the proposed amendment, if the decision were left solely to him. Unfortunately, a good chunk of his constituency would be horrified at the thought!

Mitt Romney? Four months ago, I would have assumed "probably not." At that point, I considered Mitt too milk toast, too much of a flip-flopper to back anything decisive. As time passes, I am seeing him as a "problem solver." If elected, he will tackle his new job for what it is: a job.

Job one is getting the economy moving again. In order to do that, we must increase tax revenue. I didn't say increase taxes. I said revenue. To do that, we must have more people paying taxes. Which translates to more jobs. To do this, we must lower the national debt. To lower the national debt, we must cut expenses. The "E" amendment is all about circumventing previous mandates. These previous mandates cost big money. The amendment would make them unlawful.

Barack Obama's problem is basic lack of understanding of how the private sector creates jobs. In the October 3rd debate, he was so intellectually overmatched that you almost felt sorry for him. The job of President of the United States is simply over his head. He is not qualified to be president and never was! As "E" is for English pointed out, he is a "front man" for powerful global interests who seek to undermine the United States of America.

While he might personally believe that "making Americans the "masters of the English language" is a great idea, such an objective is at cross purposes with the aims of his bosses. They want "Balkanization," in the name of diversity. Well meaning supporters of the president should allow this comparison to serve as their ultimate litmus test.

87% of the country favors English as the official language. As consummate Democrats Barack Obama and his friend Bill Clinton should be urging adoption, on the basis of the 87%. Why aren't they? Maybe it depends on the master that you serve. The Council of Foreign Relations is about the world, not America.

Conservatives want to feel good about Romney. Doing so is as simple as taking him for what he is. Read his history. Review his record as Governor of Massachusetts. Know who is friends are and you will have your answer.

Like Clinton, Romney is a "pragmatist." He would look at this proposed legislation from several dimensions, starting with the fact that 87% of the country favors it. From there, he would examine the feasibility from a "dollars and cents" perspective. Upon concluding that the numbers work, he would strive to build a bi-partisan coalition. He would seek ideas from members of both parties and hammer together something that would address a multitude of issues. Immigration reform would be at the top of the list.

The "E" Amendment is so "vintage Romney" that Mitt might think that it was his own idea! He would proceed accordingly. Perhaps Mitt Romney's strongest attribute is the ability to pick up and improve upon good ideas. This framework legislation would give him a benchmark to accomplish several goals. There would be things about the "E" Amendment that both sides liked and disliked. In essence, necessary ingredients for a real bi-partisan compromise would be there.

Obama's number one priority isn't America. He sees our people as spoiled and doesn't think twice about mandating measures that would amount to major sacrifices for all of us. His peers see a better educated America as a threat. The masses are infinitely more manageable "dumbed down." When Stalinists coined the phrase, "forward," their plans did not include teaching the masses how to think.

In short, no matter what Obama might think of the "E" Amendment personally, it would be the absolute antidote of what his party leadership is trying to accomplish. Romney loves America. He wants everyone from his sons to the new immigrant from Haiti flipping burgers at McDonalds to have room to grow. To do this, you must learn how to think. For those behind Obama's heralded "hope and change," this imposes the gravest of dangers.  

Friday, September 28, 2012

Evangelicals Could Spearhead Peaceful Separation

"Separation of Church and State."

This has been the official explanation used by government to systematically evict all religion from the mechanics of running the country. Strangely enough, it has been accepted by millions holding spiritual convictions. The question becomes, "why" have so many believers willingly relented? Political correctness? The comfort of "going with the tide?" Marginal commitment to their beliefs?

One of the most baffling aspects of American life has been the willingness to accept a verdict passed down in the sixties that came from, you might say, "left wing fringe."

Madeline O'hare, the famous atheist successfully eradicated bible teaching and prayer from the public schools. I recall when our elementary school principal circulated a petition asking for signatures to fight the action. There was some brief pouting. I don't recall hearing much of anything from my church. Nothing more was said on a national scene, until Ronald Reagan unsuccessfully challenged the ruling.

We have watched the rise in school violence. We have witnessed a rise in teen pregnancies. Drug use in public schools skyrocketed following the ruling. And, our finished product, our kids, was compromised. Yet you never heard media make much of a stir over this inconvenient correlation. This was to be expected!  What is difficult to figure is "why faith based organizations," namely churches didn't create absolute bedlam when the statistics became known? Maybe they were afraid.

Afraid? Yes. Afraid, to lose their tax exempt status. The power of the purse is always persuasive. The consensus was, "focus on what we can control and don't get bogged down in politics." This was the message believers gleaned from the whole affair. Amazingly, many bought it!

That may have it's limits. As Christians, Jews and even Muslims are seeing, the current Democrat party isn't about any religion. On national TV we watched a large number of delegates' vocally express their desire to eliminate "God" from the platform. For Americans of faith, this should serve as notice. In Democrat eyes, God is in power. His name is "government." His message is best transmitted through the doctrines of Atheism, Agnosticism and Secular Humanism.

Does tolerance and submission have a limit? For the sake of our children, I hope so! Freedom is not free! Christians, the dominant faith in this country, lived through persecution during the Roman era. Nobody ever imagined that they would face similar trials in America! These times are not easy and getting more difficult. People who believe in essentially nothing have taken over. They are now considered to be the "norm." People of faith are positioned as "religious zealots, fanatics, right-wing-fringe, and much worse.

Instead of confronting the accusers, those who believe in a higher being have withdrawn. Many churches have become nothing more than social clubs. People patiently listen to dry little sermons on "grace or redemption." Then they enjoy their "fellowship." Discussing how their beliefs may interface in the world we live in is considered annoying, inappropriate and even rude!

Is this the end of the story? I sure as hell hope not! The country stands at a crossroads! We can go quietly in the night. Or, we can draw a line in the sand. It is my everlasting hope that we will draw the line in the sand. After all, Jesus wasn't a wimp!

Mobilizing Evangelicals has always been the aim of the Republican party. Under Reagan and to a smaller degree, George W. Bush, they were successful. When they did, they won the general election. When they didn't, they lost. The "religious right" was needed for the votes. But there was concern that they might alienate independents. Where they got that notion is a mystery in itself!

With the November election looming darkly, there is a deep rooted fear that the America that we know and love may soon be a fleeting memory. Yet, there is another scenario. What if the "religious right" joins with the "fiscal right" and concludes that "anything is better than another four years of Barack Obama!"

Even, a peaceful separation of the states!

Throughout history, more wars have been fought over religion and resources than any other reasons. When the "fiscal right" is joined by the "religious right" a front that exudes "unquenchable exuberance" emerges. And what a force! Considering that the other side is largely ignorant, apathetic and unfocused(not to mention unarmed), an outcome is predictable.

You can see in the worried expressions on peoples' faces. You can feel it in their voice tone. You can sense it in their mannerisms. We are at our limit. It's like a volcano getting ready to erupt. Make no mistake! We're close!