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!