Selling Secession- Part III

Before we continue on our separation journey, let us examine two points certain to make their appearance: Social Security and the National Debt.

Social Security and Medicare are contracts between the American people and the government. Would not Americans living in departing states be forfeiting their entitlement? It comes down to how the separation is negotiated.

Rick Perry accurately explained the quandary in the first presidential debate of 2012, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." In reality, we are paying as we go. There is no "lockbox" full of cash that we all tap into, even though the program was initially positioned this way.

To facilitate, it will be necessary to continue printing money and making the payments. There have been various proposals over the years. But this has been a touchy issue for politicians. Deferring the discussion to a later time has been the option of preference.

Probably the most popular position would be as follows: "The money was paid into the program in good faith. It was a contract between the government and the taxpayer. That contract would remain in force, regardless of the disposition of the taxpayer."

To simplify, imagine a 63-year-old opting for retirement in Quito, Ecuador. He could expect to receive his entitlement because he paid in to it. It is, in effect, his! That he chooses to reside outside of the country is irrelevant.

There would need to be a cut-off age, perhaps 45 or 50. In all likelihood it would scaled down with younger recipients, such as a 45-year-old receiving less than a 55-year-old.

The existing national debt would fall under the same lines. It would be divided on a equally proportionate basis. In other words, if the separation is confined to half the existing population, or 160 million people, then half of the current twenty-trillion in debt would be assumed.

Many of the departing states will hold huge mineral resources. Nevada and Alaska for instance, are largely owned by the federal government. These resources would subsequently become property of the new republic. A revenue sharing plan, similar to the existing Alaska model, would be implemented for citizens 65 and older.

There is also the question of "what about the federal pensions?" Would the same rule for Social Security apply?"

This thorny consideration best illustrates the reason why so many are ready to separate! For years many of the public sector workers have been afforded much greater benefits when compared to their private sector counterparts. In addition to superior health care programs, they were granted pensions, while the private sector employed 401ks. When the 2008 melt down came, 401k accounts were often lost. Promised pensions remained intact.

There would be disagreements regarding the "extent" of the new republic's responsibility. It's probable that obligations to former federal employees would be honored." This would definitely include military entitlements.

The traditional argument has been that poor states like Kentucky and West Virginia receive "two dollars for every dollar" sent to Washington. In the New Republic, both states would be allowed to take advantage of their vast mineral resources. Overnight, they would be transformed from "ward of the federal government," to "the new Saudi Arabias."

Consumer debt that crossed boundaries is an equally tricky topic. It would be "all but a certainty" that the new republic would defer the matter to the individual creditor and debtor.

Let us finish the map!

Indiana, followed by Ohio would join hands with coal rich Kentucky and West Virginia. The ten, southwestern counties of Pennsylvania are likely to petition to join West Virginia and the five departing Maryland counties.

According to Colin Woodard's map, these mineral rich, Pennsylvania counties are classified "Greater Appalachia," along with all of the Maryland and West Virginia counties. Allegheny County(Pittsburgh) might not relish the thought of a foreign country, literally on it's doorstep. Look for a petition that could keep all of Pennsylvania, west of the Susquehanna, together.

Central and Southern Illinois are comprised exclusively of Greater "Appalachia." Probably half of Ohio and three-fourths of Indiana are the same. These numbers are almost certainly sufficient to bring the "Midlands" into the departure.

In following Woodard's map, the Midlands makes a giant semi-circle, beginning in New Jersey. The semi-circle extends as far west as New Mexico and Colorado, then doubles back through the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. The latter was originally settled by "Scotch-Irish," and later German immigrants who entered the continent through New Jersey.

Are we suggesting that Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin would continue their alignment with the Northeast? Probably! Woodard's map puts all three states in "Yankeedom," joining New York State, New England, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward island. We must keep in mind that these three, Great Lakes states were heavily settled by Scandinavians. History reflects that Denmark and Sweden have always gravitated more to a "nanny state" approach.

Smart money would suggest that New York City and Northern New Jersey, classified by Woodward as "New Netherlands" would join Yankeedom, as well as Eastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, New Castle County, Delaware and what was left of Maryland. The disposition of Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia would be uncertain. Puerto Rico's addition brings the population of this robust, sea faring nation to 82 million.

Chicago's history would suggest that it would join it northern neighbor states. Yet, the vote to dissolve will take place in Springfield. Odds are good that it might opt to join it's neighbors to the east, south and west. Especially, if they were afforded their own individual state!

According to Woodard's map, the north side of Chicago is considered, "Yankeedom." So are the counties north of parallel 41. The same would hold true of the northeastern part of Ohio, historically known as the "Western Reserve."

With the entire lower Midwest intact, the new republic's population has swelled to 235 million souls. This is easily larger than any country in Europe!

Three small but impressive neighbors, beginning with Cascadia, population 13 million would join the "new" United States.

The three remaining Californias, West, North and Silicon valley total 23 million. It is possible that Hawaii might split, joining the new Pacific nation.

Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador and Baffin Island would form a French speaking nation of nine million.

Thus, we now have five North American nations!

The largely "Yankeedom" Northeast could continue it's experiment with Socialism, stressing climate change awareness, nation building and secular globalism.

Cascadia could become the "Netherlands of the West." With it's mild climate, scenic beauty and highly skilled work force, a technology mecca is clearly on the horizon. Approximately the size of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas combined, socially liberal Cascadia would attract intellectuals from all parts of the world.

The remaining Californias might ultimately be reminiscent of the popular Matt Damon movie, "Elysium." Google it! You'll quickly get the picture!

Without question, there would be many Americans who might want to settle outside of their present locale. The decision for admission would be left up to the individual nation.

There would be dissenters. Yankeedom" and the "Left Coast" have both cultural and ideological ties. Over the years, they have exerted control over "flyover America." Together their cumulative population would be 110 million; less than half of the part of the country they have largely controlled.

A good number of Cascadia residents are California "refugees." A union with the more populous California states would not be an attractive prospect!

While social security and pension questions might be difficult, the defense spending determination could prove relatively easy. The "flyover America" states have historically been more prone to support defense spending initiatives.

Selling these states on creating new and improved weaponry would be as easy as selling universal health care difficult! It could be anticipated that firearms manufacturers in the Northeast will be flocking south and west. Renewed interest in the space program is a given. Expect to see numerous public-private ventures emerge, the objective "to further explore and develop the Moon, Mars and beyond!"

The "new" United States of America would include 48 states and two territories. There would be a new focus on the 10th amendment. The constitution would be similar to our existing constitution. Absent however, would be both the 16th and 17th amendments. The 14th amendment's "birthright citizenship" would be defined, as well as the question of Congressional representation made up by "citizens" and not "persons."

Additions to the constitution would include a "sanctity of marriage amendment," and an "English language amendment." There would be a third new amendment mandating a single six-year Presidential term, twelve-year-terms for Congressmen and Senators and 18-year terms for Federal Judges, including Supreme Court Justices."

There would be an urgency to reduce the size, scope and cost of the federal government. This would translate to elimination of the Education, Energy and Commerce departments. Since there would be no Dodd-Franke, there would be no Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

Obamacare would be left behind, replaced by a market based health care system that would encourage competition. The E.P.A. would be more reminiscent of 1975, when it mainly served as an information outlet.

The mere wealth of the "new" United States of America would be mind boggling! Finally freed from Yankee and Left Coast inspired regulations, the nation would forge ahead to unfathomed prosperity. A new confidence, based on attracting global "customers" would replace the notion that the "world is flat."

An experienced chief executive such as Rick Perry would be ideal for a nation deep in agricultural and mineral resources. Fifteen years as Texas' Governor will have prepared him well for the task at hand! The new republic would assume it's role as "the world's supermarket and filling station," encouraging local entrepreneurship.

Due primarily to it's emphasis on creating the world's most powerful military and navy, all overseas bases would fall into the new republic hands via osmosis. This would include all Hawaiian islands, except the big island.

The "new" America will represent freedom and prosperity for independent minded, God fearing Americans. There rests a measure of chance and risk taking in the souls of every one of it's residents. Obviously this America would not be for every American!

The Northeastern America would encompass 22 states and about 82 million citizens. These souls are more group minded and welcome a large, central government to bring ease to their lives. They carry strong principles with the emphasis on the collective. An affordable, government inspired health care system tops their wish list.

Each "America" would present different advantages and disadvantages. Over time, the like minded would find the other. In the end everyone would be happier!

There would be an additional bonus that would come with separation. Each America would have it's own media outlets, conforming to the "no foreign ownership" standard in place today. It would be business as usual for ABC, CBS and NBC. But, their universe would be confined to the Northeast. The other four Americas would have their own national broadcast media outlets.

In short, a "peaceful separation." However unlikely, it is important to remember that the alternative would be an "unpeaceful separation," or an attempt at one...

Selling Secession- Part III

Before we continue on our separation journey, let us examine two points certain to make their appearance: Social Security and the National Debt.

Social Security and Medicare are contracts between the American people and the government. Would not Americans living in departing states be forfeiting their entitlement? It comes down to how the separation is negotiated.

Rick Perry accurately explained the quandary in the first presidential debate of 2012, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." In reality, we are paying as we go. There is no "lockbox" full of cash that we all tap into, even though the program was initially positioned this way.

To facilitate, it will be necessary to continue printing money and making the payments. There have been various proposals over the years. But this has been a touchy issue for politicians. Deferring the discussion to a later time has been the option of preference.

Probably the most popular position would be as follows: "The money was paid into the program in good faith. It was a contract between the government and the taxpayer. That contract would remain in force, regardless of the disposition of the taxpayer."

To simplify, imagine a 63-year-old opting for retirement in Quito, Ecuador. He could expect to receive his entitlement because he paid in to it. It is, in effect, his! That he chooses to reside outside of the country is irrelevant.

There would need to be a cut-off age, perhaps 45 or 50. In all likelihood it would scaled down with younger recipients, such as a 45-year-old receiving less than a 55-year-old.

The existing national debt would fall under the same lines. It would be divided on a equally proportionate basis. In other words, if the separation is confined to half the existing population, or 160 million people, then half of the current twenty-trillion in debt would be assumed.

Many of the departing states will hold huge mineral resources. Nevada and Alaska for instance, are largely owned by the federal government. These resources would subsequently become property of the new republic. A revenue sharing plan, similar to the existing Alaska model, would be implemented for citizens 65 and older.

There is also the question of "what about the federal pensions?" Would the same rule for Social Security apply?"

This thorny consideration best illustrates the reason why so many are ready to separate! For years many of the public sector workers have been afforded much greater benefits when compared to their private sector counterparts. In addition to superior health care programs, they were granted pensions, while the private sector employed 401ks. When the 2008 melt down came, 401k accounts were often lost. Promised pensions remained intact.

There would be disagreements regarding the "extent" of the new republic's responsibility. It's probable that obligations to former federal employees would be honored." This would definitely include military entitlements.

The traditional argument has been that poor states like Kentucky and West Virginia receive "two dollars for every dollar" sent to Washington. In the New Republic, both states would be allowed to take advantage of their vast mineral resources. Overnight, they would be transformed from "ward of the federal government," to "the new Saudi Arabias."

Consumer debt that crossed boundaries is an equally tricky topic. It would be "all but a certainty" that the new republic would defer the matter to the individual creditor and debtor.

Let us finish the map!

Indiana, followed by Ohio would join hands with coal rich Kentucky and West Virginia. The ten, southwestern counties of Pennsylvania are likely to petition to join West Virginia and the five departing Maryland counties.

According to Colin Woodard's map, these mineral rich, Pennsylvania counties are classified "Greater Appalachia," along with all of the Maryland and West Virginia counties. Allegheny County(Pittsburgh) might not relish the thought of a foreign country, literally on it's doorstep. Look for a petition that could keep all of Pennsylvania, west of the Susquehanna, together.

Central and Southern Illinois are comprised exclusively of Greater "Appalachia." Probably half of Ohio and three-fourths of Indiana are the same. These numbers are almost certainly sufficient to bring the "Midlands" into the departure.

In following Woodard's map, the Midlands makes a giant semi-circle, beginning in New Jersey. The semi-circle extends as far west as New Mexico and Colorado, then doubles back through the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. The latter was originally settled by "Scotch-Irish," and later German immigrants who entered the continent through New Jersey.

Are we suggesting that Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin would continue their alignment with the Northeast? Probably! Woodard's map puts all three states in "Yankeedom," joining New York State, New England, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward island. We must keep in mind that these three, Great Lakes states were heavily settled by Scandinavians. History reflects that Denmark and Sweden have always gravitated more to a "nanny state" approach.

Smart money would suggest that New York City and Northern New Jersey, classified by Woodward as "New Netherlands" would join Yankeedom, as well as Eastern Pennsylvania, South Jersey, New Castle County, Delaware and what was left of Maryland. The disposition of Washington, D.C. and Northern Virginia would be uncertain. Puerto Rico's addition brings the population of this robust, sea faring nation to 82 million.

Chicago's history would suggest that it would join it northern neighbor states. Yet, the vote to dissolve will take place in Springfield. Odds are good that it might opt to join it's neighbors to the east, south and west. Especially, if they were afforded their own individual state!

According to Woodard's map, the north side of Chicago is considered, "Yankeedom." So are the counties north of parallel 41. The same would hold true of the northeastern part of Ohio, historically known as the "Western Reserve."

With the entire lower Midwest intact, the new republic's population has swelled to 235 million souls. This is easily larger than any country in Europe!

Three small but impressive neighbors, beginning with Cascadia, population 13 million would join the "new" United States.

The three remaining Californias, West, North and Silicon valley total 23 million. It is possible that Hawaii might split, joining the new Pacific nation.

Quebec, Newfoundland, Labrador and Baffin Island would form a French speaking nation of nine million.

Thus, we now have five North American nations!

The largely "Yankeedom" Northeast could continue it's experiment with Socialism, stressing climate change awareness, nation building and secular globalism.

Cascadia could become the "Netherlands of the West." With it's mild climate, scenic beauty and highly skilled work force, a technology mecca is clearly on the horizon. Approximately the size of Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas combined, socially liberal Cascadia would attract intellectuals from all parts of the world.

The remaining Californias might ultimately be reminiscent of the popular Matt Damon movie, "Elysium." Google it! You'll quickly get the picture!

Without question, there would be many Americans who might want to settle outside of their present locale. The decision for admission would be left up to the individual nation.

There would be dissenters. Yankeedom" and the "Left Coast" have both cultural and ideological ties. Over the years, they have exerted control over "flyover America." Together their cumulative population would be 110 million; less than half of the part of the country they have largely controlled.

A good number of Cascadia residents are California "refugees." A union with the more populous California states would not be an attractive prospect!

While social security and pension questions might be difficult, the defense spending determination could prove relatively easy. The "flyover America" states have historically been more prone to support defense spending initiatives.

Selling these states on creating new and improved weaponry would be as easy as selling universal health care difficult! It could be anticipated that firearms manufacturers in the Northeast will be flocking south and west. Renewed interest in the space program is a given. Expect to see numerous public-private ventures emerge, the objective "to further explore and develop the Moon, Mars and beyond!"

The "new" United States of America would include 48 states and two territories. There would be a new focus on the 10th amendment. The constitution would be similar to our existing constitution. Absent however, would be both the 16th and 17th amendments. The 14th amendment's "birthright citizenship" would be defined, as well as the question of Congressional representation made up by "citizens" and not "persons."

Additions to the constitution would include a "sanctity of marriage amendment," and an "English language amendment." There would be a third new amendment mandating a single six-year Presidential term, twelve-year-terms for Congressmen and Senators and 18-year terms for Federal Judges, including Supreme Court Justices."

There would be an urgency to reduce the size, scope and cost of the federal government. This would translate to elimination of the Education, Energy and Commerce departments. Since there would be no Dodd-Franke, there would be no Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

Obamacare would be left behind, replaced by a market based health care system that would encourage competition. The E.P.A. would be more reminiscent of 1975, when it mainly served as an information outlet.

The mere wealth of the "new" United States of America would be mind boggling! Finally freed from Yankee and Left Coast inspired regulations, the nation would forge ahead to unfathomed prosperity. A new confidence, based on attracting global "customers" would replace the notion that the "world is flat."

An experienced chief executive such as Rick Perry would be ideal for a nation deep in agricultural and mineral resources.Fifteen years as Texas' Governor will have prepared him well for the task at hand! The new republic would assume it's role as "the world's supermarket and filling station," encouraging local entrepreneurship.

Due primarily to it's emphasis on creating the world's most powerful military and navy, all overseas bases would fall into the new republic hands via osmosis. This would include all Hawaiian islands, except the big island.

The "new" America will represent freedom and prosperity for independent minded, God fearing Americans. There rests a measure of chance and risk taking in the souls of every one of it's residents. Obviously this America would not be for every American!

The Northeastern America would encompass 22 states and about 82 million citizens. These souls are more group minded and welcome a large, central government to bring ease to their lives. They carry strong principles with the emphasis on the collective. An affordable, government inspired health care system tops their wish list.

Each "America" would present different advantages and disadvantages. Over time, the like minded would find the other. In the end everyone would be happier!

There would be an additional bonus that would come with separation. Each America would have it's own media outlets, conforming to the "no foreign ownership" standard in place today. It would be business as usual for ABC, CBS and NBC. But, their universe would be confined to the Northeast. The other four Americas would have their own national broadcast media outlets.

In short, a "peaceful separation." However unlikely, it is important to remember that the alternative would be an "unpeaceful separation," or an attempt at one...

Selling Secession- Part Two

By now, most have reviewed, or at least googled, Colin Woodard's American Nations.

It's possible that a few checked out Tim Draper's "Six Californias."

There may have even been interest in investigating the "Cascadia Movement."

There will certainly be more written on "Texit."

In all, those insightful enough to "read the tea leaves," may conclude that a separation movement will have it's origins in the West. This is fitting. The West has the most to gain!

A question that will emerge: "Would a President Hillary Clinton draw the line rather quickly? To states withdrawing from the union, wouldn't her response be, "not hardly?"

She would like to! Mrs. Clinton's historical demeanor would suggest that she would be outraged! But there are numerous considerations. Starting with, the military.

The armed forces are pledged to defend the constitution, not the presidency. The Secret Service holds that responsibility! It would be the high leadership of the United State's armed forces who might take the greatest exception, in the name of national unity. But, who is to say that the military leadership itself is not deeply divided? Smart money suggests that it is. If so, commissioned military officers might cast their lots with their home states. This would be a worst case scenario for Hillary Clinton and the states staying with her.

The Cascadia movement would attract a lot of disgruntled liberals. These are the Americans who have given up on the idea of "one country, one people." Dismayed and disgusted with the inherent corruption clearly evidenced by the Clinton machine, they would welcome a new life in a beautiful respite. Especially, when the government announced it's intention to use Huey Long's "Every man a King," concept to effectively turn six socio-economic classes into four!

For those unfamiliar with the former Louisiana Governor/Senator's proclamation that "you could be a millionaire," consider this. Long believed that every citizen was owed free public education, including higher education, and free healthcare. He asserted that "inherited money" was the "root of all evil." His solution: "Everyone was entitled to a million dollars, tax free." Over an above that went back into state coffers, benefiting all. For better insight, please reference T. Harry William's autobiography, "Kingfish." I would guess that Bernie Sanders has already done so.

Unlike Cascadia, the remaining California's West, North and Silicon Valley, might want to maintain ties with Hillary's America. This would largely depend on what happened with the Midwest. But, there is always the chance that they might decide to make it on their own, as Cascadia would seek to do. The final disposition of these twenty-three million people could remain fluid until much later.

Meanwhile, Clinton and cohorts would face three major considerations. The first is obviously the police and law enforcement agencies.

The surface impression suggests that men and women working in law enforcement would obey directives given. Their unpredictability stems from where those orders come from. Most are originated at the local or state levels. Thousands of local officials are visibly unhappy with the tone and actions of the current administration. Not much relief is considered forthcoming when assessing a Clinton presidency. These law enforcement officials are vital in quelling potential revolts. Thus, the motivation to nationalize the police forces.

Veterans nationwide are furious with the Obama Administration. Hillary Clinton does not represent a departure from current practices. Many of our Vets are aggrieved beyond words. Angering former military members is not a good idea. Especially when considering how many young people in arms would be influenced by them.

Scaring the Clinton's the most is "Armed America." The National Rifle Association recently estimated approximately 312 million firearms in the United States accounted for. At least that number are believed to be unaccounted for. Almost all these weapons are in the hands of roughly 30% of the population. It's little wonder why Clinton and the left seek rigid gun control measures!

Any efforts to subdue a peaceful separation of states by force could bring on a confrontation that would make the first Civil War look like a church social! Clinton's advisers undoubtedly would advise against a violent reprisal. After all, this isn't 1861. We no longer live in the "Age of Innocence." We have Television. We have the Internet. Most Americans simply don't care! To expect them to welcome a "bloodbath" is beyond reality!

Hillary's pragmatic Jewish advisory contingent would share the apocalyptic downside! This would be a "mano versus mano" war, left versus the right, winner take all. Being forced to vacate the continent would suddenly become a real possibility!

Isn't a half of a loaf of bread better than no bread? Depends on how you slice it! Not to mention, who is selling it!

Hillary Clinton's negative ratings are very high. Against Donald Trump, they are comparable. But, what about when comparing negatives to those of Rick Perry?

Perry represents everything that Clinton isn't. He is the son of West Texas tenant farmers. Rick Perry didn't have an indoor bathroom until age six. Unlike Clinton, he couldn't afford a fancy school back east. Instead, he attended Texas A & M on a ROTC scholarship. Upon graduation, he entered the Air Force, flying C-130's in 51 sorties!

Military men, especially former combat veterans, love Rick Perry. So do Christian fundamentalists. To them, a choice between Rick and Hillary would be a choice between good and evil; Christianity versus Secular Humanism; honesty versus corruption. It would represent choosing between Americanism and Globalism; a choice between an encroaching federal government and "states rights." Perry attests to being a "10th amendment guy," less we forget!

The latter consideration would be pivotal in determining the final outcomes of Colorado and Utah.

What about the East? Would Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia join their Southern Brothers? For that matter, what about those Midwestern States referenced in the previous post?

Before we go there, let us return to the West once more. Previously the sequence moved North, crossing the Canadian border. Three provinces exited Canada, creating a crisis in itself. It is highly probable that both Clinton and her Canadian counterpart, Justin Trudeau might summon the help of the United Nations.

For Americans seeking separation, the rage would be beyond words! Mrs. Clinton would be the "globalist," inviting foreign players to subdue Americans here at home. Ouch! Many would vow to "kill UN operatives first, asking questions later."

The new republic would waste no time in gaining recognition. Russia and Great Britain would likely be the first two nations to extend the welcome mat!

By now, I would anticipate every state west of the Mississippi, with the exception of Minnesota, the three non-"texiting" Californias, Cascadia, and Hawaii falling in. Hawaii's disposition would remain fluid, a final determination to come later.

Woodard's book defines Georgia and South Carolina as a mix of "Deep South" and "Greater Appalachia." North Carolina represents these nations, plus "Tidewater." Virginia is a mix of "Greater Appalachia" and the "Tidewater" nations.

Although small, Maryland represents three nations: "Tidewater, Greater Appalachia" and "The Midlands.Maryland's five western counties have recently made public their aspired separation from the rest of the state. Woodard's model places these counties in "Greater Appalachia." Many of the 500,000 residents have indicated a desire to join West Virginia.

The "Eastern Shore" of Maryland and the Southern counties, starting with Anne Arundel, are "Tidewater." So are Kent and Sussex counties, Delaware. Collectively, we have better than two million people living in these nineteen counties. Did I hear the word "Chesapeake?"

How the East will ultimately shake down is anyone's guess. But, the probability of four Southern States and a new Tidewater state, christened "Chesapeake," all going with Texas, is high.

Northern Virginia has three counties that are essentially "Washington, D.C.." A breakup in the Union might be to their detriment, but it would hardly matter. They would go with the rest of the state. Or, they would wait until the fate of D.C. itself was determined.

At this juncture, we are better than 180 million who have cast their lots with Texas and the new Republic. The end of the Exodus is not in sight.

Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.

Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.

Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.

Selling Seccession - Part I

Before we start this journey, let me direct you to four separate topics and one book. Upon review, you will immediately grasp my orientation.

The book is "American Nations." It is written by Colin Woodard, a respected author from the state of Maine. Woodard describes the immigration history of the people who have settled North America, where they originally entered North America, the countries of their origins and their separate circumstances. When you google the book, you will see a descriptive overview, complete with a map.

Then, google the following topics:

(a) Cascadia Movement
(b) Lincoln Movement
(c) Alberta Separatist Movement
(d) Tim Draper's "The Six Californias."

Last but not least, google, "Texit."

Buckle up! Here we go!

A growing number of disgruntled Texans are making noises that if Hillary Clinton is elected President of the United States, they are prepared to tell the rest of the country, "Adios Amigos!" A single question quickly emerges: "Can Texas legally succeed from the Union?" Didn't "Texas versus White," that obscure 1869 SCOTUS ruling, permanently lay that idea to rest?

No. Definitely not! "Texas versus White" was about bonds, not secession.

In reality, every state has the constitutional right to succeed. The union itself is voluntary. For those who airily proclaim that the issue was "settled, once and for all, with the last Civil War," I beg to differ! After all, the population of the United States in 1861 was 31 million. Today, it is 320 million. Secondly, we do not have the great moral issue of slavery on the table.

In today's America, we have a gulf between our people that has not been so profound since 1861. The issues that divide us range from Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, immigration control, excessive regulation, energy production, religious freedom, decadence and ultimately "to what extent" we want government in our lives. None of these issues were around in 1861.

The definition and description of each "nation" making up Woodard's "American Nations" is a separate topic for a different post. Yet, they serve as a benchmark for our discussion.

Here is the probable sequence. The election proves closer than anticipated. Two or three swing states are contested. Claims of voter fraud become violent. Hillary is declared winner despite a wave of protests. Texas subsequently announces it's intension to dissolve it's relationship with the Union. A convention is held, probably in Dallas. A new constitution is adopted that pretty much mirrors our existing constitution with four exceptions.

(a) The 14th amendment's definition of birthright citizenship is clarified.
(b) The 16th amendment is excluded
(c) The 17th amendment is excluded
(d) A new amendment, making English the official language in the United States is adopted.

Rick Perry is unanimously elected President of the new Republic.

Texas represents the world's ninth largest economy. Could it survive alone. Yes. But, it will never be given the chance! Odds are both Oklahoma and Louisiana will be the first two states to join Texas. Both have deep cultural and economic ties to Texas, figuratively "joined at the hip" with the "Lone Star State." Texas is composed of roughly 28 million people. Oklahoma and Louisiana combined bring another nine million souls.

Hillary's, and Obama's reaction? Who knows? They might merely say, "don't let the door hit you on the way out!" After all, these are three "red states." Without their obstruction, it would be much easier to implement their "one world government, socialist agenda on the rest of the country!" Salon Magazine had an article that predicted as much in 2013.

In reality, the exodus would not stop with Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana. At stake would be "saving the America that much of the country holds dear." The South would not hold an exclusive on it.

A realignment of North America will succeed only if the instigators are experienced at actually running a government. Perry has his infrastructure in place. Serving fifteen years as Texas' Chief Executive has prepared him in short order for what can be the founding of a new and better America. Yet many Americans, despite their loathing of Hillary Clinton, will initially be cautious. The quickest way to change this will be to appeal to, and ultimately include, a different region of America.

Woodard defines the west coast of Northern California, Oregon and Washington as the "Left Coast." This region, like the Northeast, is made up of Americas' most liberal voters. Collectively, they have effectively "bookended," with the help of the Northeast, "Flyover America."

In 2015, California voted to break into six states. The originator of the concept was venture capitalist, Tim Draper. Draper contended that the state was simply too large and complicated to effectively administer from Sacramento. The forty million who make up the "Golden State" would likely agree. Problem is, there isn't a snowball's chance that the present Congress would ever allow it. Never mind the fact that California has twice the numbers that New England holds, while the later is granted twelve Senate seats to California's two!

Thanks to Draper, a strategy employing the age old Chinese axiom, "divide and conquer" is possible! The new Republic would offer a solution: "Issuing an invitation to all six Californias;to join Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and probable others in a new republic based on retaining traditional American values."

Laughable? Not to three of the six Californias! Expect South California, Central California and Jefferson to say, "We're in!"

Boom!

For those not yet familiar with Draper's division, South California is composed of Orange County, San Diego and Palm Springs. According to Woodard's definition, this state would come exclusively from the nation of "El Norte." The population would be about eleven million, comparable to Georgia.

Central California is classified as "Far West" and includes the Imperial valley. At the southern end is Bakersfield. The largest city is Fresno. Overall, we are talking probably four and half million people, about the size of Kentucky. Central California comprises one of the most important agricultural regions in the world. To join Texas translates to saying "hasta lavista" to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is slowly suffocating Central's residents.

Jefferson, in the far north part of the state, actually bleeds into Oregon, engulfing seven of it's counties. Included are Chico-Redding, Eureka, Medford and Coos Bay, Oregon. The proposed capital is Yrecka. The concept of a state of Jefferson is not new. In fact, it's been around better than 150 years, complete with flag. Part of Jefferson falls into the "Far West" nation. Part of it is classified as "Left Coast." Size and population wise, Jefferson's two million people, and land mass, is comparable to Nebraska.

Let's move northward for a moment and talk about "Cascadia." This Pacific-Northwest separatist movement was originally conceived by Environmental groups who sought a "green haven," where "man could live in close communion to Mother Earth." Making up Cascadia would be British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. The population tallies fifteen million, mostly white Americans and Canadians.

The breakup of the Union and especially, the segmenting of California would undoubtedly spur action from this beautiful region of the country. The utopia of free health care, free college, rigid "green laws" and a new definition of "social justice," would represent a paradise for Bernie Sanders type, white liberals.

With Cascadia's inception, two subsequent developments can be expected.

(a) The new state of "Lincoln" will become a reality.
(b) Alberta will move on their long coveted dream of becoming a part of America.

Let's start with Lincoln. The movement to form a separate state, joining the eastern parts of Washington and Oregon, has been around for better than one-hundred years. Spokane would be the capital. Pendleton, Yakima and Walla Walla would be important cities. The size and population of Lincoln would be comparable to South Dakota, about one-million people. The entire state would be, according to Woodward's map, "Far West."

The Canadian West has long resented being asked to "carry" the country by it's more populous Eastern Provinces. Alberta's four and one half million people represent Canada's "oil patch." The chance of joining energy friendly, Texas would be especially enticing. Saskatchewan, it's sister province and Canada's "break basket," would most certainly follow with it's one million plus natives.

You can count Alaska in! Most of the "Last Frontier" is owned by the federal government. The traditional cry, "Alaska for Alaskans" has represented a far-off capital that has largely ignored the state, treating it like "the bastard child!" No more! With the lure of a more energy friendly, western focused national government, run by leaders familiar with their problems and potentials, Alaska would ascend to heights unimagined!

Suddenly three states have become ten states! And, we have hardly started!

Expect Arizona, with it's fear of being overrun, to join the exit. Mississippi and Alabama have been dreaming of succession since April 10th, 1865. Like Arizona, Florida fears being potentially overrun with refugees and illegal aliens encouraged by Hillary's promise of open borders. Arkansas has too many cultural ties to Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana to hang around!

Kentucky and West Virginia have slightly different histories but one major commonality: Coal. Hillary Clinton has vowed to destroy the coal industry. The new Republic will invite them to join, promising to fully develop their production potential. Both states have legislatures controlled by Democrats, but are becoming "redder" by the day.

Nashville is booming! A prosperous economy based on low taxes is attracting business' like a magnet, from coat-to-coast. Look for the Volunteer state to fall in, in short order.

The question becomes, "with all of these defections, wouldn't the Washington based government eventually intervene?"
They might aspire to. This is where it gets rather complicated.

Indiana has close ties, both geographically and culturally with Kentucky. Abraham Lincoln recognized this in 1861. Very little has changed in 150 years. Except the fact that the Washington based government has vowed to destroy Kentucky's coal industry! In Woodward's map, all of Kentucky and West Virginia and two-thirds of Indiana are totally included in "Greater Appalachia." This goes for 'three-fourths of Illinois and half of Ohio."

Winning these three critical "rust belt states" will be as easy as convincing the nation of "Midlands" to come aboard. Midland's is the nation directly north of "Greater Appalachia." It begins in Southern New Jersey and draws a vast semi-circle that picks up Northwestern Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, the eastern part of the Dakotas, Manitoba and Ontario. Per Woodard, Midland's holds more common distinction to Greater Appalachia than their northern neighbor, "Yankeedom."

From this brief outline, it is easy to see how a new and improved United States of America can be visualized. It starts with defining boundaries. The next piece falls into place when those living within those boundaries realize that the new republic holds more benefits for them, than does the old one. This will start with drawing a new eastern boundary.

The latter argument should be a most winnable one.

Stay tuned.

Globalism Becoming Toxic Watchword in America

Somehow, our mainstream media never got it!

The seething anger that has enveloped America like a smoldering fire can be described with two words:

"Anti-globalism."

The Paul Ryan's, Mitt Romney's, the Bush clan or any of the Republican "leadership" never got it! Neither did Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer or any of the Democrat bosses. Buried deep inside their Washington bubble, they never comprehended that the average Joe didn't want to hear their proclamation that we "live in a global society" and we must accept Thomas Friedman's verdict that "the world is flat."

Therefore, when Donald Trump emerged on the political scene, professing problems with our current trade deals, they became incensed. I use the word "they" because it was indeed a bi-partisan preference for the ways that things were.

So are we not a global society? And, if not, what are the alternatives?

Let us visit the second question first. The polar opposite to globalism is nationalism. Too simplified? Let's dissect it from a media perspective.

Our mainstream media is essentially a concentration of globalists who see the United States as a nation that has traditionally exploited other nations to amass the wealth currently held. It was so flagrant that Barack Obama felt that he needed to issue an apology to the rest of the world during his first months in office.

Trump's brand of nationalism AKA as "America first," was quickly construed as racism and bigotry. His promise to "make America great again," was translated by Hillary Clinton among others as "taking America back to a time of discriminatory practices and limited opportunity for all."

The objective to "secure the borders" was also given a thumbs down by both party hierarchies. For Democrats, it amounted to thwarting future voters. For the Republican Establishment, it posed a threat on an ongoing supply of cheap labor. Trump talked of "building a wall." He stated correctly that without it, "we wouldn't have a country." His party leadership seemed more worried about alienating Latino voters. Hillary and company picked up on it, cagily asserting that that their aim was to "remove barriers not create them."

The hope, of course, was to confuse "Joe-Six Pack." If the hierarchies of both parties were successful, a rogue like Donald Trump would be dismissed as a charlatan who didn't understand how things actually worked. Problem for both Democrat and Republican leadership was that Joe-Six Pack wasn't confused! He understood plainly that "globalization" translated to his job being shipped overseas, where cheap labor maximized profit for large corporations.

These Washingtonians may be further surprised this November when Donald Trump does much better than predicted with Hispanic voters. Why will he? Because, inside the beltway bubble, there is little understanding that "immigration reform" is not the only issue concerning Latinos. Both "currency stability" and "jobs and the economy" outrank it! Imagine that!

Why African Americans continue their love affair with the Democrat party remains a mystery. But statistics tell the story. Black unemployment remains unchanged, despite nearly eight years of an African America president. Yet, Mrs. Clinton and Democrats seem unable to offer any solutions, other than gun control.

Eventually, Abraham Lincolns famous assessment will find sufficient African American ears: "You can fool some of the people all of the time and all the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Look for people of color to finally ignore the stale words of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, taking a look at Trump's plan to incentivize job creators in inner city problem places such as Baltimore, Chicago and Detroit. It is reminiscent of that old national Negro college ad, "We don't want a handout, just a hand."

Promoting minority entrepreneurialism in the inner cities may be the correct path for America in general. But, it does reduce dependency. That in itself, is a threat when remembering that we are speaking of a key Democrat constituency! Like blue-collar whites, these voters fully understand that globalism is not in their best interest. By the same token, border security is.

In short, globalism is not something to be excited about, let alone embrace. Unless, of course, you are seeking cheap labor and maximum profits. Up until now, "lower middle class America" has lacked a spokesman. The two parties in power have essentially been one in the same where globalism was concerned. Donald Trump has identified it as the real woe in the lives of a frustrated population.

"Brexit" has inspired the country. More and more Americans are seeking something that will allow them to reclaim their destiny. Those opposed are being reassessed. Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, the Bushes and the Clintons are undergoing renewed scrutiny. The traditional party lines are growing increasingly blurred.

Make no mistake! There will be Bernie Sanders supporters who will pull the lever for Trump this November. It is also common knowledge that both Bush first ladies have expressed preference for Hillary Clinton!

Up until now it has been "red team versus blue team, playing for the same university." Much to the chagrin of both, there is now another alternative.

Anger, Frustration, Fear Fueling Americas' Preference

No Lindsey Graham! It's not a matter of death by drowning or poison!

New Conservatives still don't get it. America isn't buying their definition of the world. To their chagrin, we are not accepting their assurance that "we live in a global society and must conform to a globalist state of mind." Maybe trust, or lack thereof, has something to do with it.

The term "free trader," which once carried positive connotations, has become synonomous with "outsourcing American jobs offshore."

Former Governor's Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush are viewed as "the political class."

Last year, I recounted Henry Olsen's April 2011 article that appeared in National Review. It was entitled, "Dangerous Disaffection." You might want to google it for review. For those who take the time, Donald Trump's success will be clearly understood.

The "disaffecteds" account for 20% of the American population. 77% are white. Two-thirds are Independents. Most of their households generate less than $30,000 per year. Trump has connected with these voters.

Not to suggest that these voters are ultra conservative. They are not! But, they do not trust the federal government. As a whole they loathe Barack Obama. Oh, by the way! Most have little if any knowledge of the Tea Party.

Republicans have been attempting to court these voters for years; from the time that the Reagan revolution referred to them as "Reagan Democrats." They contributed to the "Gippers victory." As the years slid by, they resumed their place in the shadows.

The great depression, as Olsen recounts, hit these Americans especially hard. They are dismayed to learn that individuals in the country illegally often have easier access to entitlements. Hence, a resentment for illegal immigration takes on a more personal meaning.

The left driven media seems to equate everything out of their politically correct bubble as rascism, bigotry, fascism, homophobia and Nazism. Shame on them! Like the Republican ruling class, they are learning that these generalisms only fuel the fire.

It comes from the perception of being screwed! Middle class America is angry. Real angry! To the point of finally taking action. All that was needed was a leader. It appears that they have one in Donald Trump.

Conservative purists insist that Trump isn't one of them. After all, he is talking protectionism and universal health care, hardly Republican positions. Conversely, he is promoting border control, second amendment purism and a national defense that will be second to none. All resonate with the most conservative voters.

New Conservatives scorn Trump. Maybe it's because he represents all that they are against. His nationalism stands as polar opposite to their globalist tendencies. His opposition to the Iraq war was clearly inconsistent with the Neo-Con preference for engaging in pre-emptive wars.

This is a very dangerous time for the Republican party. That they scorn Trump goes without saying. But, the electorate has embraced him. If they push him aside in favor of a candidate more in sync with their aims, they could subsequently hand the White House to Hillary Clinton.

Ted Cruz' Last Chance

Ted Cruz has been simply outmaneuvered!

Donald Trump's insightful coalition and how it has impacted the Republican Party is another subject for a different post. But it has subsequently taken much of the wind from Ted Cruz' sail.

End game? Not yet!

Cruz should be congradulated with his disciplined, ground game. He has expertly positioned himself as the constitutional conservative. He had drawn a distinction between himself and the Washington, D.C. ruling class. His followers would literally "walk on glass," as the owner of Tea Party Nation, a conservative blog, once insisted.

Yet, he looks destined to finish in second place in this years 2016 Republican primary. True, there is always the remote possibility of a contested convention, where he finishes on top after several, gut wrenching votes. Smart money says that this won't happen! And, if it did, it would at best, hand the general election to Hillary Clinton. At worst, it could be "end game" for the party.

Can destiny be arrested?

Possibly. The question becomes, "is Ted Cruz the man who can(and will) do it?"

The nation is truly seething. There has not been this amount of anger since 1968, if at any time in my lifetime. Mainstream America feels cheated. There is a minimal amount of trust in elected leaders. Career politicians were greeted with unusual scorn in the 2016 Republican primary. No end appears in sight.

What is scarcely below the surface is the paradigm that America, as we used to know it, is beyond reprieve. The subjects that are being discussed today amount to "should illegal aliens be entitled to receive Obamacare?" And, "should we take Obama's liberal Supreme Court appointee because the appointee that Hillary Clinton might make could prove even more liberal?"

The second amendment is under seige. So is control of our families. The debt will soon reach twenty-one trillion dollars, thanks to accommodationist Republican wisdom.

Yes, we have problems in America. Everyone, including Ted Cruz has made us keenly aware of them. The difference has been in Donald Trump's ability to lay out solutions. True, they may be controversial. In fact, they may be futile to begin with. But, they are ideas that appeal to frustrated American ears!

Cruz cannot "out Trump, Trump!" He has been strategically beaten to the punch on the Nationalist front. The option that remains invokes a long ago argument that many consider settled.

Ted Cruz can remake the 2016 argument in one bold stroke. In doing so, he will likely siphon away two-thirds, if not more of Donald Trump's newly formed constituency. It can be described in five words: "Peaceful separation of the states."

No politician has dared to tread on these words! Yet, Ted Cruz can literally define himself once and for all as either a "run of the mill politician," or "a once in a lifetime reformer." The choice is his.

It would begin with Texas, which has the undisputed right to secede. Cruz' knowledge of the constitution could then serve him well. It has been argued since the mid-19th century that the union is voluntary. I am confident that Cruz could make a sound argument for every states right to break from the union.

The Constitution also provides for a "convention of states" in the event that the Federal government has become a threat to the overall nation. Considering the state of the pending Supreme Court appointment, I would say that we are there. But, what tangible advantage would there be for disolving the Union? Actually, there are many.

For those unfamiliar with the continent wide chatter toward new states and break-away regions, please google, "Cascadia movement." Then google, Tim Draper's "The six Californias."

Yessir! There are a lot of North Americans discussing their options. From a material standpoint, the proverbial "red" states would come out on the long end of the stick, if their individual resources went with them. In fact, it's highly probable that several blue states would split, based on individual county, ala West Virginia in 1863.

What are the advantages of a New Republic, outside of America first Immigration reform, a balanced budget, stronger focus on the family, more individual freedoms, a stronger military and a court system that was recasted?

I do see an intellectual such as Ted Cruz patiently explaining the merits of the "New and better America." It would start with the creation of a new "commodity based dollar." You heard it right!

The new currency would be fully backed by commodities, whether they were coal or corn, petroleum or pork bellies. Within months, it would be trading at many times the value of the Federal Reserve note, described by G. Edward Griffin as "fiat." Yet, legally, contractually, the new Republic could retire it's share of the federal debt with Federal Reserve notes.

"What about Social Security?"

As Rick Perry pointed out in a 2011 debate, Social Security is nothing but a "Ponzi scheme" anyway. Payments would continue in a seamless transition. Yet, they would gain value, as the new dollar's true worth made it's mark.

Without question, there would be critics. Most would predict that the goods sold abroad would be unaffordable. But, there is no guarantee of such. What could be expected is a different kind of America, a more federalistic America. It might even be an America sans the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments. Not to mention the grossly obese federal bureaucracy that has produced six of the ten most affluent counties in the U.S. that border D.C..

Would Americans listen to Cruz if he positioned "peaceful separation" as an option to a Hillary Clinton presidency? Absolutely! In fact, it is predicted that the roar would be so loud that the Trump thunder would become inaudible.

Amazingly, the introduction of a new America may be Ted Cruz' only hope of gaining the nomination. Not to mention being elected President. The surprising element in this discussion rests with "how many" Americans, south and north of the Mason-Dixon line, would embrace "peaceful separation."

Expect traditionally trendy California to be the first to embrace!