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!


Saturday, September 22, 2012

Selling the South's Perfect Society Theory

You must dig deep into the dusty annals of Southern history to fully comprehend the depth and breadth of the South's "perfect society" theory. So it goes for lost civilizations! But what exactly was "the perfect society" and does it still influence contemporary thinking?

In a nutshell, the "perfect society" was a paradigm. It held that "no matter how rich or poor you were, how educated or non-educated you were, who your parents were, what country that you came from, what your religious preference was, what color your skin happened to be, you were always one rung higher than the slave."

Revisionist historians have attempted to substitute "black" for "slave." Nothing could be further from the truth! Not only were "people of color" slaveholders, many fought for the South during the war between the states!

At the time of the war between the states, there were 31 million living in the United States. Of that number, only nine million lived in the south. Today we are ten times that number. A large portion of that total(if not the majority) does not have mid-19th century roots. Therefore, we are talking about a small fraction of America that could be influenced collectively by this forgotten point of view.

The "perfect society" continues to surface. Most prolifically, we saw it in the Republican debates. When Rick Perry told the hosting Tea Party to "have a heart," he was unconsciously expressing an annoyance that stemmed from his own collective unconscious. Perry is a Southerner. His American roots go much further back than the war between the states.

The issue was "waiving out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens." Non-Southerners, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney were citing Perry for being "soft on illegal immigration." In Perry's mind, the mistake had already been made by the federal goverment. He and 177 of 181 Texas legislatures concluded that "making the best out of a federal failure," was the right and only course.

What differentiated Perry and the Texas legislatures from his Republican opponents was their view of the children themselves. These kids were seen as human beings first, and potential resources for the state of Texas. There were no ethnic considerations. There was not even a thought of their parents national origins.

Perry alone did not come to this conclusion. But he was given credit for assuming a leadership role. It may have cost him the Republican nomination. Yet, his and the Texas legislatures' decision was consistent with "perfect society" ideology.

The significance of Perry's position may be unclear when attempting to apply it in 2012. True, there are no slaves in America. At least, not officially! But wait! Let's take a closer look!

Millions of Americans can be classified as "entitlees." In other words, they are dependent totally on the government for their livelihoods. We are not talking about Social Security or disability recipients. We are not referring to anyone who has paid into a system and is now receiving their due! These "entitlees" are those who are essentially "wards of the nation." They don't work. They never have worked. They simply live, often bearing children in the process.

President Lyndon Johnson can be credited for bringing to America, "the great society." This should not be confused with the South's "perfect society." In actuality, it is polar opposite! Johnson's "great society" was a massive welfare state. It encouraged Americans to become wards or dependents of the government. It created nothing short of a modern day slave system!

If the "perfect society" terminology were inacted in modern America, it would stipulate that these "entitlees" would be denied suffrage. In effect, "no matter how rich or poor, your color, creed, or national origin, if you worked or had worked," you would always be one rung higher than the "entitlee."

This is not to say that Governor Perry advocates disenfranchising "entitlees!" He has never hinted at such! But he would agree that any socieity that found a way to eliminate color, religious and ethnic lines would be advantageous and worthy of consideration!

Having mid-19th century American roots is not a prerequisite for embracing the "perfect society" theory.

Florida Senator, Marco Rubio presented a perception of America that is consistent with the South's perfect society. The Senator grew up in Florida which, in spite of the large hoard of transplants, is a Southern state, holding a Southern soul. Like Perry, Rubio has never suggested disenfranchisement for entitlees. But he would agree that eliminating differences based on color, ethnic and religious lines would be a noble objective!

Could non-Southerners comfortably adopt the "perfect society?" Easily and decisively! For those who have roots in America more than a century, it would amount to an acquired point of view. History provides insight as to "why."

 There was a huge flood of Europeon immgrants, especially from Southern and Eastern Europe in the 1890's. Because of language differences, the immigrants tended to stick together. Most went to the North.  . Those already there resented the newcomers. Primarily because they were willing to work for less. The fact that they spoke the tougue of their origin exacerbated the animosity.

That was then. Today, adopting "perfect society" thinking is comparable to learning a second language. Jeb Bush, did not grow up in a Spanish speaking household. Nevertheless he embraced the language and culture. Today he speaks Spanish better than most Hispanics.

In short, non-Southerners could and would see the genuine wisdom of the "perfect society." They would become some of it's most vocal supporters!

There would be strong opposition. The greatest proponents of Johnson's "great society" are Barack Obama and the majority of Democrats. More "entitlees" translates to more votes! The thought of disenfrachising "entitlees," even if it meant creating an America where color, ethnic and religious lines were inconsequential would be considered a threat.

"E" is for English introduced a fourth grade English proficiency test as a prerequasite for a required voter I.D. card. This also would face serious opposition from the far left. Their position is simple: "Without the "entitlee" vote, their consituency would be greatly diminished. Add those unable to pass a fourth grade English literacy test and their party would face extinction!

Could the South's perfect society theory be sold to America?

The answer is, "yes, to some if not most of America." To all? Obviously not!

There are growing numbers of Americans who resent Obama's catering to those who have "no skin in the game!" In promoting an entitlement society Democrats seek an America that doesn't advocate individual responsibility. The president has gone on record proclaiming that he favors "wealth redistribution."  His 2012 presidential campaign can be summed up in two words: "class warfare."

"Class warfare" stands in opposition to the South's great society. Logically, it would be assumed that those opposing the president would embrace it. Not so. To do so requires an absence of collective racial, ethnic, and religious prejudice. As much as the President and his agenda are loathed, it is a stretch for some to truly embrace this nearly forgotten axiom of an almost extinct culture.

To revive it may require a bridge. That bridge would be the "E" amendment as outlined in "E" is for English. Americans fear change. This "perfect society" actually frightens a few not born with it in their collective! A simultaneous move to make English the official languge would bring needed solace.

There is a longing to cling to an America that lived fifty, one-hundred, even two hundred years ago. There is also the realization that the future can only be won by learning from the past. If we can retrieve the best parts of our nations history, we can secure the future.

Should we fail, we will be subjected to a different kind of past. We see sordid glimpses daily as we watch Barack Obama's policies unveiled.

The president's agenda amounts to Communism. Least we forget, this failed system was responsible for 135 million deaths in the previous century. It will take a unified front to defeat Obama and his hoards of (Lenin's words) useful idiots!

We should never forget that freedom is not free and never has been. The enemy that is upon us comes from within. As was the case in Russia, many are slow to recognize it. It preys upon resentment. It's primary allies are ignorance, self pity, laziness and jealousy.

The South's "perfect society" could be the ticket for arresting the approaching madness.  At the very least, it would be the ideal catalyst for defining boundaries in the event that the states decide to separate. 

Friday, September 7, 2012

"Second Chronicles 10 & 11"- Preamble to the Coming Fury

Rehoboam was the son of King Solomon. Solomon, the son of David had built a powerful Kingdom. When he died, the Elders of Israel warned their new king:

"Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou somewhat lighter for us, thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loans."

King Rehoboam responded in promising, "my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions."

In other words, "moderate," said the elders! But the new king would have none of it. In the end, only two of the twelve tribes of Israel stayed true to him. The remaining tribes went with Jeroboam, his father's trusted general.

Barack Obama would be wise to review Second Chronicles, especially chapters ten and eleven. It would serve as a reminder of how arrogance can be the downfall of what was seen as an impregnable position.

Mr. Obama has decided that "50.1% is good enough." Never mind how he might get there! In his eyes, this is it! For those who don't believe it, there are stronger measures. Could one million hollow point rounds recently ordered by Department of Homeland Security be a clue?

The president's arrogance may be tempered by a single statistical fact. There are 270 million firearms(that we know about) in America. They are in the hands of 30% of the population. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is aware of this statistic. For those not following her antics, check out recently proposed legislation!

What are they afraid of?

There is always the specter of a conservative population that finally says, "enough is enough!" Obama, Clinton and Democrats in general are banking on "bluster without action." If they are correct, American conservatives will talk, even issue mild threats before quietly succumbing.

The Republican establishment and many independents are praying for a Romney victory. If this happens, it will be business as usual. The big difference will be a more "energy friendly" administration. There will be  marginal impact, namely relief from oncoming legislation. But very little will change.

From the outset, most conservatives were unhappy with Mitt Romney. He was considered "too moderate."   Romney is a combination of Bill Clinton, without the sex scandals, and Gerald Ford! To centrists, he is the answer to a divided, divisive government. This is a stark alternative to Obama, who has emerged as the perfect mixture of Walter Mondale and Joseph Stalin. 

What if Romney loses? What if the election is contested? What is there are numerous cries of "voter fraud?" Will the "right" quietly accept the verdict? My guess is, "probably not."

There has likely never been a president more hated than Barack Obama. This includes the Southern animosity held for Abraham Lincoln in 1860. With Lincoln,  his desire to limit the expansion of slavery was seen as "an insult and a threat to  the Southern way of life." With Lincoln, it was "salt in a wound that had been festering for forty years." With Obama, the enmity is different. It goes much deeper, fully accentuating the growing divide in America.

Obama advocates a large central government. Conservatives consider his view of governments' role as encroachment upon their individual lives and freedoms. There is open bitterness with Obama's partisan "Affordable Health Care Act."  The massive spending and debt is ever troubling. There is worry with excessive regulatory oversight. Most Americans have experienced a loss of disposable income. Job security weighs heavily on most minds. Rising energy prices are considered unnecessary. The moral fiber in the country is being compromised.

 Obama's  vision of America  runs contrary to half the country's vision!

In the President's eyes, it doesn't matter; provided that this "half" is only 49.9% of the electorate. This is a dangerous posture for any leader to take. Even more disquieting is the "class warfare" campaign Democrats are openly waging. It is derived from the Marxist playbook.

Obama proponents fear "armed opposition." It doesn't take a statistician to know that most gun owners are conservatives. Thus,  if there was a second civil war, it would be "liberals versus conservatives and the liberals would lose!" There would be a mass exodus to Canada, Europe and Latin America. President and Mrs. Obama would be at the front of the line!

The second amendment is the true "thorn" in the President's side! That's why he, Mrs. Clinton and devoted disciples would love to compromise it. Then there remains a third option. This alternative is reminiscent of Jeroboam, Rehoboam and post King Solomon Israel: "A peaceful separation of the states."

When this happened in Israel, there was little if any bloodshed. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin stayed with Rehoboam. The remaining ten left with Jeroboam. It wasn't that Jeroboam had secretly contemplated a revolution. It just happened.

America is divided on three core issues. Energy, Health care and Right to Work. Under ordinary circumstances, a compromise could easily be devised to circumvent any potential division. Obama, as Commander in Chief has designated himself judge and jury. With food and energy prices rising in America, it's a bad idea to take a "my way or the highway" stance, as Rehoboam did!

Let us throw in a massive tax increase, coupled with continued high unemployment.  To "ice the cake," we have debt that is spiraling our of control! And finally, a contested election! It's the perfect storm!

Most Americans can't bring themselves to think about a war on the continent.  This isn't 1861. We don't live in the "age of innocence." We have television. We have Internet. Make no mistake! Americans will not endure an 1860's style blood bath! Not for this president or any before or since! No way! No how!

This prevailing mindset makes it possible for Barack Obama to become the "Rehoboam of the 21st century." Could this actually happen? Without question!

People today are apathetic. Most living in New Jersey couldn't tell you where Arkansas is! Let alone, South Dakota! Our youth is essentially bored with History and Geography. Most wouldn't bat an eye, unless it directly impacted their lives. Which it wouldn't! Or, at least, not at first!

There is a different intensity level when comparing these, "gum chewing, email texting, rap music lovers" to the average American conservative. The same intensity gap holds true when comparing conservatives to the "Plebyeaih(Pronounced PLEB YEA IH)." These Americans, referenced in "E" is for English, are unable to read English at a 4th grade level. Both groups typically see Government as a provider and facilitator.

When one side holds a passion that borders on fanaticism while the other side essentially doesn't care, the outcome is predictable! The President and his supporters know this. They frantically aspire to level the playing field. The question is, "can they buy enough time to fully bring about the change they promised before the other side catches on and punches their number?"

We should have a better idea in two or three months. If Romney loses the election, we should see a major revival of the nullification argument. Nullification is the first step toward secession.