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.
Post a Comment