Would Mitt Romney support the "E" Amendment?
Would Barack Obama support the "E" Amendment?
A Chicago probate lawyer shared his perception with me. He had met Barack Obama and was a strong supporter. He believed that the President would support the proposed amendment, if the decision were left solely to him. Unfortunately, a good chunk of his constituency would be horrified at the thought!
Mitt Romney? Four months ago, I would have assumed "probably not." At that point, I considered Mitt too milk toast, too much of a flip-flopper to back anything decisive. As time passes, I am seeing him as a "problem solver." If elected, he will tackle his new job for what it is: a job.
Job one is getting the economy moving again. In order to do that, we must increase tax revenue. I didn't say increase taxes. I said revenue. To do that, we must have more people paying taxes. Which translates to more jobs. To do this, we must lower the national debt. To lower the national debt, we must cut expenses. The "E" amendment is all about circumventing previous mandates. These previous mandates cost big money. The amendment would make them unlawful.
Barack Obama's problem is basic lack of understanding of how the private sector creates jobs. In the October 3rd debate, he was so intellectually overmatched that you almost felt sorry for him. The job of President of the United States is simply over his head. He is not qualified to be president and never was! As "E" is for English pointed out, he is a "front man" for powerful global interests who seek to undermine the United States of America.
While he might personally believe that "making Americans the "masters of the English language" is a great idea, such an objective is at cross purposes with the aims of his bosses. They want "Balkanization," in the name of diversity. Well meaning supporters of the president should allow this comparison to serve as their ultimate litmus test.
87% of the country favors English as the official language. As consummate Democrats Barack Obama and his friend Bill Clinton should be urging adoption, on the basis of the 87%. Why aren't they? Maybe it depends on the master that you serve. The Council of Foreign Relations is about the world, not America.
Conservatives want to feel good about Romney. Doing so is as simple as taking him for what he is. Read his history. Review his record as Governor of Massachusetts. Know who is friends are and you will have your answer.
Like Clinton, Romney is a "pragmatist." He would look at this proposed legislation from several dimensions, starting with the fact that 87% of the country favors it. From there, he would examine the feasibility from a "dollars and cents" perspective. Upon concluding that the numbers work, he would strive to build a bi-partisan coalition. He would seek ideas from members of both parties and hammer together something that would address a multitude of issues. Immigration reform would be at the top of the list.
The "E" Amendment is so "vintage Romney" that Mitt might think that it was his own idea! He would proceed accordingly. Perhaps Mitt Romney's strongest attribute is the ability to pick up and improve upon good ideas. This framework legislation would give him a benchmark to accomplish several goals. There would be things about the "E" Amendment that both sides liked and disliked. In essence, necessary ingredients for a real bi-partisan compromise would be there.
Obama's number one priority isn't America. He sees our people as spoiled and doesn't think twice about mandating measures that would amount to major sacrifices for all of us. His peers see a better educated America as a threat. The masses are infinitely more manageable "dumbed down." When Stalinists coined the phrase, "forward," their plans did not include teaching the masses how to think.
In short, no matter what Obama might think of the "E" Amendment personally, it would be the absolute antidote of what his party leadership is trying to accomplish. Romney loves America. He wants everyone from his sons to the new immigrant from Haiti flipping burgers at McDonalds to have room to grow. To do this, you must learn how to think. For those behind Obama's heralded "hope and change," this imposes the gravest of dangers.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Evangelicals Could Spearhead Peaceful Separation
"Separation of Church and State."
This has been the official explanation used by government to systematically evict all religion from the mechanics of running the country. Strangely enough, it has been accepted by millions holding spiritual convictions. The question becomes, "why" have so many believers willingly relented? Political correctness? The comfort of "going with the tide?" Marginal commitment to their beliefs?
One of the most baffling aspects of American life has been the willingness to accept a verdict passed down in the sixties that came from, you might say, "left wing fringe."
Madeline O'hare, the famous atheist successfully eradicated bible teaching and prayer from the public schools. I recall when our elementary school principal circulated a petition asking for signatures to fight the action. There was some brief pouting. I don't recall hearing much of anything from my church. Nothing more was said on a national scene, until Ronald Reagan unsuccessfully challenged the ruling.
We have watched the rise in school violence. We have witnessed a rise in teen pregnancies. Drug use in public schools skyrocketed following the ruling. And, our finished product, our kids, was compromised. Yet you never heard media make much of a stir over this inconvenient correlation. This was to be expected! What is difficult to figure is "why faith based organizations," namely churches didn't create absolute bedlam when the statistics became known? Maybe they were afraid.
Afraid? Yes. Afraid, to lose their tax exempt status. The power of the purse is always persuasive. The consensus was, "focus on what we can control and don't get bogged down in politics." This was the message believers gleaned from the whole affair. Amazingly, many bought it!
That may have it's limits. As Christians, Jews and even Muslims are seeing, the current Democrat party isn't about any religion. On national TV we watched a large number of delegates' vocally express their desire to eliminate "God" from the platform. For Americans of faith, this should serve as notice. In Democrat eyes, God is in power. His name is "government." His message is best transmitted through the doctrines of Atheism, Agnosticism and Secular Humanism.
Does tolerance and submission have a limit? For the sake of our children, I hope so! Freedom is not free! Christians, the dominant faith in this country, lived through persecution during the Roman era. Nobody ever imagined that they would face similar trials in America! These times are not easy and getting more difficult. People who believe in essentially nothing have taken over. They are now considered to be the "norm." People of faith are positioned as "religious zealots, fanatics, right-wing-fringe, and much worse.
Instead of confronting the accusers, those who believe in a higher being have withdrawn. Many churches have become nothing more than social clubs. People patiently listen to dry little sermons on "grace or redemption." Then they enjoy their "fellowship." Discussing how their beliefs may interface in the world we live in is considered annoying, inappropriate and even rude!
Is this the end of the story? I sure as hell hope not! The country stands at a crossroads! We can go quietly in the night. Or, we can draw a line in the sand. It is my everlasting hope that we will draw the line in the sand. After all, Jesus wasn't a wimp!
Mobilizing Evangelicals has always been the aim of the Republican party. Under Reagan and to a smaller degree, George W. Bush, they were successful. When they did, they won the general election. When they didn't, they lost. The "religious right" was needed for the votes. But there was concern that they might alienate independents. Where they got that notion is a mystery in itself!
With the November election looming darkly, there is a deep rooted fear that the America that we know and love may soon be a fleeting memory. Yet, there is another scenario. What if the "religious right" joins with the "fiscal right" and concludes that "anything is better than another four years of Barack Obama!"
Even, a peaceful separation of the states!
Throughout history, more wars have been fought over religion and resources than any other reasons. When the "fiscal right" is joined by the "religious right" a front that exudes "unquenchable exuberance" emerges. And what a force! Considering that the other side is largely ignorant, apathetic and unfocused(not to mention unarmed), an outcome is predictable.
You can see in the worried expressions on peoples' faces. You can feel it in their voice tone. You can sense it in their mannerisms. We are at our limit. It's like a volcano getting ready to erupt. Make no mistake! We're close!
This has been the official explanation used by government to systematically evict all religion from the mechanics of running the country. Strangely enough, it has been accepted by millions holding spiritual convictions. The question becomes, "why" have so many believers willingly relented? Political correctness? The comfort of "going with the tide?" Marginal commitment to their beliefs?
One of the most baffling aspects of American life has been the willingness to accept a verdict passed down in the sixties that came from, you might say, "left wing fringe."
Madeline O'hare, the famous atheist successfully eradicated bible teaching and prayer from the public schools. I recall when our elementary school principal circulated a petition asking for signatures to fight the action. There was some brief pouting. I don't recall hearing much of anything from my church. Nothing more was said on a national scene, until Ronald Reagan unsuccessfully challenged the ruling.
We have watched the rise in school violence. We have witnessed a rise in teen pregnancies. Drug use in public schools skyrocketed following the ruling. And, our finished product, our kids, was compromised. Yet you never heard media make much of a stir over this inconvenient correlation. This was to be expected! What is difficult to figure is "why faith based organizations," namely churches didn't create absolute bedlam when the statistics became known? Maybe they were afraid.
Afraid? Yes. Afraid, to lose their tax exempt status. The power of the purse is always persuasive. The consensus was, "focus on what we can control and don't get bogged down in politics." This was the message believers gleaned from the whole affair. Amazingly, many bought it!
That may have it's limits. As Christians, Jews and even Muslims are seeing, the current Democrat party isn't about any religion. On national TV we watched a large number of delegates' vocally express their desire to eliminate "God" from the platform. For Americans of faith, this should serve as notice. In Democrat eyes, God is in power. His name is "government." His message is best transmitted through the doctrines of Atheism, Agnosticism and Secular Humanism.
Does tolerance and submission have a limit? For the sake of our children, I hope so! Freedom is not free! Christians, the dominant faith in this country, lived through persecution during the Roman era. Nobody ever imagined that they would face similar trials in America! These times are not easy and getting more difficult. People who believe in essentially nothing have taken over. They are now considered to be the "norm." People of faith are positioned as "religious zealots, fanatics, right-wing-fringe, and much worse.
Instead of confronting the accusers, those who believe in a higher being have withdrawn. Many churches have become nothing more than social clubs. People patiently listen to dry little sermons on "grace or redemption." Then they enjoy their "fellowship." Discussing how their beliefs may interface in the world we live in is considered annoying, inappropriate and even rude!
Is this the end of the story? I sure as hell hope not! The country stands at a crossroads! We can go quietly in the night. Or, we can draw a line in the sand. It is my everlasting hope that we will draw the line in the sand. After all, Jesus wasn't a wimp!
Mobilizing Evangelicals has always been the aim of the Republican party. Under Reagan and to a smaller degree, George W. Bush, they were successful. When they did, they won the general election. When they didn't, they lost. The "religious right" was needed for the votes. But there was concern that they might alienate independents. Where they got that notion is a mystery in itself!
With the November election looming darkly, there is a deep rooted fear that the America that we know and love may soon be a fleeting memory. Yet, there is another scenario. What if the "religious right" joins with the "fiscal right" and concludes that "anything is better than another four years of Barack Obama!"
Even, a peaceful separation of the states!
Throughout history, more wars have been fought over religion and resources than any other reasons. When the "fiscal right" is joined by the "religious right" a front that exudes "unquenchable exuberance" emerges. And what a force! Considering that the other side is largely ignorant, apathetic and unfocused(not to mention unarmed), an outcome is predictable.
You can see in the worried expressions on peoples' faces. You can feel it in their voice tone. You can sense it in their mannerisms. We are at our limit. It's like a volcano getting ready to erupt. Make no mistake! We're close!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Selling the South's Perfect Society Theory
You must dig deep into the dusty annals of Southern history to fully comprehend the depth and breadth of the South's "perfect society" theory. So it goes for lost civilizations! But what exactly was "the perfect society" and does it still influence contemporary thinking?
In a nutshell, the "perfect society" was a paradigm. It held that "no matter how rich or poor you were, how educated or non-educated you were, who your parents were, what country that you came from, what your religious preference was, what color your skin happened to be, you were always one rung higher than the slave."
Revisionist historians have attempted to substitute "black" for "slave." Nothing could be further from the truth! Not only were "people of color" slaveholders, many fought for the South during the war between the states!
At the time of the war between the states, there were 31 million living in the United States. Of that number, only nine million lived in the south. Today we are ten times that number. A large portion of that total(if not the majority) does not have mid-19th century roots. Therefore, we are talking about a small fraction of America that could be influenced collectively by this forgotten point of view.
The "perfect society" continues to surface. Most prolifically, we saw it in the Republican debates. When Rick Perry told the hosting Tea Party to "have a heart," he was unconsciously expressing an annoyance that stemmed from his own collective unconscious. Perry is a Southerner. His American roots go much further back than the war between the states.
The issue was "waiving out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens." Non-Southerners, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney were citing Perry for being "soft on illegal immigration." In Perry's mind, the mistake had already been made by the federal goverment. He and 177 of 181 Texas legislatures concluded that "making the best out of a federal failure," was the right and only course.
What differentiated Perry and the Texas legislatures from his Republican opponents was their view of the children themselves. These kids were seen as human beings first, and potential resources for the state of Texas. There were no ethnic considerations. There was not even a thought of their parents national origins.
Perry alone did not come to this conclusion. But he was given credit for assuming a leadership role. It may have cost him the Republican nomination. Yet, his and the Texas legislatures' decision was consistent with "perfect society" ideology.
The significance of Perry's position may be unclear when attempting to apply it in 2012. True, there are no slaves in America. At least, not officially! But wait! Let's take a closer look!
Millions of Americans can be classified as "entitlees." In other words, they are dependent totally on the government for their livelihoods. We are not talking about Social Security or disability recipients. We are not referring to anyone who has paid into a system and is now receiving their due! These "entitlees" are those who are essentially "wards of the nation." They don't work. They never have worked. They simply live, often bearing children in the process.
President Lyndon Johnson can be credited for bringing to America, "the great society." This should not be confused with the South's "perfect society." In actuality, it is polar opposite! Johnson's "great society" was a massive welfare state. It encouraged Americans to become wards or dependents of the government. It created nothing short of a modern day slave system!
If the "perfect society" terminology were inacted in modern America, it would stipulate that these "entitlees" would be denied suffrage. In effect, "no matter how rich or poor, your color, creed, or national origin, if you worked or had worked," you would always be one rung higher than the "entitlee."
This is not to say that Governor Perry advocates disenfranchising "entitlees!" He has never hinted at such! But he would agree that any socieity that found a way to eliminate color, religious and ethnic lines would be advantageous and worthy of consideration!
Having mid-19th century American roots is not a prerequisite for embracing the "perfect society" theory.
Florida Senator, Marco Rubio presented a perception of America that is consistent with the South's perfect society. The Senator grew up in Florida which, in spite of the large hoard of transplants, is a Southern state, holding a Southern soul. Like Perry, Rubio has never suggested disenfranchisement for entitlees. But he would agree that eliminating differences based on color, ethnic and religious lines would be a noble objective!
Could non-Southerners comfortably adopt the "perfect society?" Easily and decisively! For those who have roots in America more than a century, it would amount to an acquired point of view. History provides insight as to "why."
There was a huge flood of Europeon immgrants, especially from Southern and Eastern Europe in the 1890's. Because of language differences, the immigrants tended to stick together. Most went to the North. . Those already there resented the newcomers. Primarily because they were willing to work for less. The fact that they spoke the tougue of their origin exacerbated the animosity.
That was then. Today, adopting "perfect society" thinking is comparable to learning a second language. Jeb Bush, did not grow up in a Spanish speaking household. Nevertheless he embraced the language and culture. Today he speaks Spanish better than most Hispanics.
In short, non-Southerners could and would see the genuine wisdom of the "perfect society." They would become some of it's most vocal supporters!
There would be strong opposition. The greatest proponents of Johnson's "great society" are Barack Obama and the majority of Democrats. More "entitlees" translates to more votes! The thought of disenfrachising "entitlees," even if it meant creating an America where color, ethnic and religious lines were inconsequential would be considered a threat.
"E" is for English introduced a fourth grade English proficiency test as a prerequasite for a required voter I.D. card. This also would face serious opposition from the far left. Their position is simple: "Without the "entitlee" vote, their consituency would be greatly diminished. Add those unable to pass a fourth grade English literacy test and their party would face extinction!
Could the South's perfect society theory be sold to America?
The answer is, "yes, to some if not most of America." To all? Obviously not!
There are growing numbers of Americans who resent Obama's catering to those who have "no skin in the game!" In promoting an entitlement society Democrats seek an America that doesn't advocate individual responsibility. The president has gone on record proclaiming that he favors "wealth redistribution." His 2012 presidential campaign can be summed up in two words: "class warfare."
"Class warfare" stands in opposition to the South's great society. Logically, it would be assumed that those opposing the president would embrace it. Not so. To do so requires an absence of collective racial, ethnic, and religious prejudice. As much as the President and his agenda are loathed, it is a stretch for some to truly embrace this nearly forgotten axiom of an almost extinct culture.
To revive it may require a bridge. That bridge would be the "E" amendment as outlined in "E" is for English. Americans fear change. This "perfect society" actually frightens a few not born with it in their collective! A simultaneous move to make English the official languge would bring needed solace.
There is a longing to cling to an America that lived fifty, one-hundred, even two hundred years ago. There is also the realization that the future can only be won by learning from the past. If we can retrieve the best parts of our nations history, we can secure the future.
Should we fail, we will be subjected to a different kind of past. We see sordid glimpses daily as we watch Barack Obama's policies unveiled.
The president's agenda amounts to Communism. Least we forget, this failed system was responsible for 135 million deaths in the previous century. It will take a unified front to defeat Obama and his hoards of (Lenin's words) useful idiots!
We should never forget that freedom is not free and never has been. The enemy that is upon us comes from within. As was the case in Russia, many are slow to recognize it. It preys upon resentment. It's primary allies are ignorance, self pity, laziness and jealousy.
The South's "perfect society" could be the ticket for arresting the approaching madness. At the very least, it would be the ideal catalyst for defining boundaries in the event that the states decide to separate.
In a nutshell, the "perfect society" was a paradigm. It held that "no matter how rich or poor you were, how educated or non-educated you were, who your parents were, what country that you came from, what your religious preference was, what color your skin happened to be, you were always one rung higher than the slave."
Revisionist historians have attempted to substitute "black" for "slave." Nothing could be further from the truth! Not only were "people of color" slaveholders, many fought for the South during the war between the states!
At the time of the war between the states, there were 31 million living in the United States. Of that number, only nine million lived in the south. Today we are ten times that number. A large portion of that total(if not the majority) does not have mid-19th century roots. Therefore, we are talking about a small fraction of America that could be influenced collectively by this forgotten point of view.
The "perfect society" continues to surface. Most prolifically, we saw it in the Republican debates. When Rick Perry told the hosting Tea Party to "have a heart," he was unconsciously expressing an annoyance that stemmed from his own collective unconscious. Perry is a Southerner. His American roots go much further back than the war between the states.
The issue was "waiving out-of-state tuition for children of illegal aliens." Non-Southerners, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney were citing Perry for being "soft on illegal immigration." In Perry's mind, the mistake had already been made by the federal goverment. He and 177 of 181 Texas legislatures concluded that "making the best out of a federal failure," was the right and only course.
What differentiated Perry and the Texas legislatures from his Republican opponents was their view of the children themselves. These kids were seen as human beings first, and potential resources for the state of Texas. There were no ethnic considerations. There was not even a thought of their parents national origins.
Perry alone did not come to this conclusion. But he was given credit for assuming a leadership role. It may have cost him the Republican nomination. Yet, his and the Texas legislatures' decision was consistent with "perfect society" ideology.
The significance of Perry's position may be unclear when attempting to apply it in 2012. True, there are no slaves in America. At least, not officially! But wait! Let's take a closer look!
Millions of Americans can be classified as "entitlees." In other words, they are dependent totally on the government for their livelihoods. We are not talking about Social Security or disability recipients. We are not referring to anyone who has paid into a system and is now receiving their due! These "entitlees" are those who are essentially "wards of the nation." They don't work. They never have worked. They simply live, often bearing children in the process.
President Lyndon Johnson can be credited for bringing to America, "the great society." This should not be confused with the South's "perfect society." In actuality, it is polar opposite! Johnson's "great society" was a massive welfare state. It encouraged Americans to become wards or dependents of the government. It created nothing short of a modern day slave system!
If the "perfect society" terminology were inacted in modern America, it would stipulate that these "entitlees" would be denied suffrage. In effect, "no matter how rich or poor, your color, creed, or national origin, if you worked or had worked," you would always be one rung higher than the "entitlee."
This is not to say that Governor Perry advocates disenfranchising "entitlees!" He has never hinted at such! But he would agree that any socieity that found a way to eliminate color, religious and ethnic lines would be advantageous and worthy of consideration!
Having mid-19th century American roots is not a prerequisite for embracing the "perfect society" theory.
Florida Senator, Marco Rubio presented a perception of America that is consistent with the South's perfect society. The Senator grew up in Florida which, in spite of the large hoard of transplants, is a Southern state, holding a Southern soul. Like Perry, Rubio has never suggested disenfranchisement for entitlees. But he would agree that eliminating differences based on color, ethnic and religious lines would be a noble objective!
Could non-Southerners comfortably adopt the "perfect society?" Easily and decisively! For those who have roots in America more than a century, it would amount to an acquired point of view. History provides insight as to "why."
There was a huge flood of Europeon immgrants, especially from Southern and Eastern Europe in the 1890's. Because of language differences, the immigrants tended to stick together. Most went to the North. . Those already there resented the newcomers. Primarily because they were willing to work for less. The fact that they spoke the tougue of their origin exacerbated the animosity.
That was then. Today, adopting "perfect society" thinking is comparable to learning a second language. Jeb Bush, did not grow up in a Spanish speaking household. Nevertheless he embraced the language and culture. Today he speaks Spanish better than most Hispanics.
In short, non-Southerners could and would see the genuine wisdom of the "perfect society." They would become some of it's most vocal supporters!
There would be strong opposition. The greatest proponents of Johnson's "great society" are Barack Obama and the majority of Democrats. More "entitlees" translates to more votes! The thought of disenfrachising "entitlees," even if it meant creating an America where color, ethnic and religious lines were inconsequential would be considered a threat.
"E" is for English introduced a fourth grade English proficiency test as a prerequasite for a required voter I.D. card. This also would face serious opposition from the far left. Their position is simple: "Without the "entitlee" vote, their consituency would be greatly diminished. Add those unable to pass a fourth grade English literacy test and their party would face extinction!
Could the South's perfect society theory be sold to America?
The answer is, "yes, to some if not most of America." To all? Obviously not!
There are growing numbers of Americans who resent Obama's catering to those who have "no skin in the game!" In promoting an entitlement society Democrats seek an America that doesn't advocate individual responsibility. The president has gone on record proclaiming that he favors "wealth redistribution." His 2012 presidential campaign can be summed up in two words: "class warfare."
"Class warfare" stands in opposition to the South's great society. Logically, it would be assumed that those opposing the president would embrace it. Not so. To do so requires an absence of collective racial, ethnic, and religious prejudice. As much as the President and his agenda are loathed, it is a stretch for some to truly embrace this nearly forgotten axiom of an almost extinct culture.
To revive it may require a bridge. That bridge would be the "E" amendment as outlined in "E" is for English. Americans fear change. This "perfect society" actually frightens a few not born with it in their collective! A simultaneous move to make English the official languge would bring needed solace.
There is a longing to cling to an America that lived fifty, one-hundred, even two hundred years ago. There is also the realization that the future can only be won by learning from the past. If we can retrieve the best parts of our nations history, we can secure the future.
Should we fail, we will be subjected to a different kind of past. We see sordid glimpses daily as we watch Barack Obama's policies unveiled.
The president's agenda amounts to Communism. Least we forget, this failed system was responsible for 135 million deaths in the previous century. It will take a unified front to defeat Obama and his hoards of (Lenin's words) useful idiots!
We should never forget that freedom is not free and never has been. The enemy that is upon us comes from within. As was the case in Russia, many are slow to recognize it. It preys upon resentment. It's primary allies are ignorance, self pity, laziness and jealousy.
The South's "perfect society" could be the ticket for arresting the approaching madness. At the very least, it would be the ideal catalyst for defining boundaries in the event that the states decide to separate.
Friday, September 7, 2012
"Second Chronicles 10 & 11"- Preamble to the Coming Fury
Rehoboam was the son of King Solomon. Solomon, the son of David had built a powerful Kingdom. When he died, the Elders of Israel warned their new king:
"Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou somewhat lighter for us, thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loans."
King Rehoboam responded in promising, "my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions."
In other words, "moderate," said the elders! But the new king would have none of it. In the end, only two of the twelve tribes of Israel stayed true to him. The remaining tribes went with Jeroboam, his father's trusted general.
Barack Obama would be wise to review Second Chronicles, especially chapters ten and eleven. It would serve as a reminder of how arrogance can be the downfall of what was seen as an impregnable position.
Mr. Obama has decided that "50.1% is good enough." Never mind how he might get there! In his eyes, this is it! For those who don't believe it, there are stronger measures. Could one million hollow point rounds recently ordered by Department of Homeland Security be a clue?
The president's arrogance may be tempered by a single statistical fact. There are 270 million firearms(that we know about) in America. They are in the hands of 30% of the population. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is aware of this statistic. For those not following her antics, check out recently proposed legislation!
What are they afraid of?
There is always the specter of a conservative population that finally says, "enough is enough!" Obama, Clinton and Democrats in general are banking on "bluster without action." If they are correct, American conservatives will talk, even issue mild threats before quietly succumbing.
The Republican establishment and many independents are praying for a Romney victory. If this happens, it will be business as usual. The big difference will be a more "energy friendly" administration. There will be marginal impact, namely relief from oncoming legislation. But very little will change.
From the outset, most conservatives were unhappy with Mitt Romney. He was considered "too moderate." Romney is a combination of Bill Clinton, without the sex scandals, and Gerald Ford! To centrists, he is the answer to a divided, divisive government. This is a stark alternative to Obama, who has emerged as the perfect mixture of Walter Mondale and Joseph Stalin.
What if Romney loses? What if the election is contested? What is there are numerous cries of "voter fraud?" Will the "right" quietly accept the verdict? My guess is, "probably not."
There has likely never been a president more hated than Barack Obama. This includes the Southern animosity held for Abraham Lincoln in 1860. With Lincoln, his desire to limit the expansion of slavery was seen as "an insult and a threat to the Southern way of life." With Lincoln, it was "salt in a wound that had been festering for forty years." With Obama, the enmity is different. It goes much deeper, fully accentuating the growing divide in America.
Obama advocates a large central government. Conservatives consider his view of governments' role as encroachment upon their individual lives and freedoms. There is open bitterness with Obama's partisan "Affordable Health Care Act." The massive spending and debt is ever troubling. There is worry with excessive regulatory oversight. Most Americans have experienced a loss of disposable income. Job security weighs heavily on most minds. Rising energy prices are considered unnecessary. The moral fiber in the country is being compromised.
Obama's vision of America runs contrary to half the country's vision!
In the President's eyes, it doesn't matter; provided that this "half" is only 49.9% of the electorate. This is a dangerous posture for any leader to take. Even more disquieting is the "class warfare" campaign Democrats are openly waging. It is derived from the Marxist playbook.
Obama proponents fear "armed opposition." It doesn't take a statistician to know that most gun owners are conservatives. Thus, if there was a second civil war, it would be "liberals versus conservatives and the liberals would lose!" There would be a mass exodus to Canada, Europe and Latin America. President and Mrs. Obama would be at the front of the line!
The second amendment is the true "thorn" in the President's side! That's why he, Mrs. Clinton and devoted disciples would love to compromise it. Then there remains a third option. This alternative is reminiscent of Jeroboam, Rehoboam and post King Solomon Israel: "A peaceful separation of the states."
When this happened in Israel, there was little if any bloodshed. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin stayed with Rehoboam. The remaining ten left with Jeroboam. It wasn't that Jeroboam had secretly contemplated a revolution. It just happened.
America is divided on three core issues. Energy, Health care and Right to Work. Under ordinary circumstances, a compromise could easily be devised to circumvent any potential division. Obama, as Commander in Chief has designated himself judge and jury. With food and energy prices rising in America, it's a bad idea to take a "my way or the highway" stance, as Rehoboam did!
Let us throw in a massive tax increase, coupled with continued high unemployment. To "ice the cake," we have debt that is spiraling our of control! And finally, a contested election! It's the perfect storm!
Most Americans can't bring themselves to think about a war on the continent. This isn't 1861. We don't live in the "age of innocence." We have television. We have Internet. Make no mistake! Americans will not endure an 1860's style blood bath! Not for this president or any before or since! No way! No how!
This prevailing mindset makes it possible for Barack Obama to become the "Rehoboam of the 21st century." Could this actually happen? Without question!
People today are apathetic. Most living in New Jersey couldn't tell you where Arkansas is! Let alone, South Dakota! Our youth is essentially bored with History and Geography. Most wouldn't bat an eye, unless it directly impacted their lives. Which it wouldn't! Or, at least, not at first!
There is a different intensity level when comparing these, "gum chewing, email texting, rap music lovers" to the average American conservative. The same intensity gap holds true when comparing conservatives to the "Plebyeaih(Pronounced PLEB YEA IH)." These Americans, referenced in "E" is for English, are unable to read English at a 4th grade level. Both groups typically see Government as a provider and facilitator.
When one side holds a passion that borders on fanaticism while the other side essentially doesn't care, the outcome is predictable! The President and his supporters know this. They frantically aspire to level the playing field. The question is, "can they buy enough time to fully bring about the change they promised before the other side catches on and punches their number?"
We should have a better idea in two or three months. If Romney loses the election, we should see a major revival of the nullification argument. Nullification is the first step toward secession.
"Thy father made our yoke heavy, but make thou somewhat lighter for us, thus shalt thou say unto them, My little finger shall be thicker than my father's loans."
King Rehoboam responded in promising, "my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions."
In other words, "moderate," said the elders! But the new king would have none of it. In the end, only two of the twelve tribes of Israel stayed true to him. The remaining tribes went with Jeroboam, his father's trusted general.
Barack Obama would be wise to review Second Chronicles, especially chapters ten and eleven. It would serve as a reminder of how arrogance can be the downfall of what was seen as an impregnable position.
Mr. Obama has decided that "50.1% is good enough." Never mind how he might get there! In his eyes, this is it! For those who don't believe it, there are stronger measures. Could one million hollow point rounds recently ordered by Department of Homeland Security be a clue?
The president's arrogance may be tempered by a single statistical fact. There are 270 million firearms(that we know about) in America. They are in the hands of 30% of the population. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is aware of this statistic. For those not following her antics, check out recently proposed legislation!
What are they afraid of?
There is always the specter of a conservative population that finally says, "enough is enough!" Obama, Clinton and Democrats in general are banking on "bluster without action." If they are correct, American conservatives will talk, even issue mild threats before quietly succumbing.
The Republican establishment and many independents are praying for a Romney victory. If this happens, it will be business as usual. The big difference will be a more "energy friendly" administration. There will be marginal impact, namely relief from oncoming legislation. But very little will change.
From the outset, most conservatives were unhappy with Mitt Romney. He was considered "too moderate." Romney is a combination of Bill Clinton, without the sex scandals, and Gerald Ford! To centrists, he is the answer to a divided, divisive government. This is a stark alternative to Obama, who has emerged as the perfect mixture of Walter Mondale and Joseph Stalin.
What if Romney loses? What if the election is contested? What is there are numerous cries of "voter fraud?" Will the "right" quietly accept the verdict? My guess is, "probably not."
There has likely never been a president more hated than Barack Obama. This includes the Southern animosity held for Abraham Lincoln in 1860. With Lincoln, his desire to limit the expansion of slavery was seen as "an insult and a threat to the Southern way of life." With Lincoln, it was "salt in a wound that had been festering for forty years." With Obama, the enmity is different. It goes much deeper, fully accentuating the growing divide in America.
Obama advocates a large central government. Conservatives consider his view of governments' role as encroachment upon their individual lives and freedoms. There is open bitterness with Obama's partisan "Affordable Health Care Act." The massive spending and debt is ever troubling. There is worry with excessive regulatory oversight. Most Americans have experienced a loss of disposable income. Job security weighs heavily on most minds. Rising energy prices are considered unnecessary. The moral fiber in the country is being compromised.
Obama's vision of America runs contrary to half the country's vision!
In the President's eyes, it doesn't matter; provided that this "half" is only 49.9% of the electorate. This is a dangerous posture for any leader to take. Even more disquieting is the "class warfare" campaign Democrats are openly waging. It is derived from the Marxist playbook.
Obama proponents fear "armed opposition." It doesn't take a statistician to know that most gun owners are conservatives. Thus, if there was a second civil war, it would be "liberals versus conservatives and the liberals would lose!" There would be a mass exodus to Canada, Europe and Latin America. President and Mrs. Obama would be at the front of the line!
The second amendment is the true "thorn" in the President's side! That's why he, Mrs. Clinton and devoted disciples would love to compromise it. Then there remains a third option. This alternative is reminiscent of Jeroboam, Rehoboam and post King Solomon Israel: "A peaceful separation of the states."
When this happened in Israel, there was little if any bloodshed. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin stayed with Rehoboam. The remaining ten left with Jeroboam. It wasn't that Jeroboam had secretly contemplated a revolution. It just happened.
America is divided on three core issues. Energy, Health care and Right to Work. Under ordinary circumstances, a compromise could easily be devised to circumvent any potential division. Obama, as Commander in Chief has designated himself judge and jury. With food and energy prices rising in America, it's a bad idea to take a "my way or the highway" stance, as Rehoboam did!
Let us throw in a massive tax increase, coupled with continued high unemployment. To "ice the cake," we have debt that is spiraling our of control! And finally, a contested election! It's the perfect storm!
Most Americans can't bring themselves to think about a war on the continent. This isn't 1861. We don't live in the "age of innocence." We have television. We have Internet. Make no mistake! Americans will not endure an 1860's style blood bath! Not for this president or any before or since! No way! No how!
This prevailing mindset makes it possible for Barack Obama to become the "Rehoboam of the 21st century." Could this actually happen? Without question!
People today are apathetic. Most living in New Jersey couldn't tell you where Arkansas is! Let alone, South Dakota! Our youth is essentially bored with History and Geography. Most wouldn't bat an eye, unless it directly impacted their lives. Which it wouldn't! Or, at least, not at first!
There is a different intensity level when comparing these, "gum chewing, email texting, rap music lovers" to the average American conservative. The same intensity gap holds true when comparing conservatives to the "Plebyeaih(Pronounced PLEB YEA IH)." These Americans, referenced in "E" is for English, are unable to read English at a 4th grade level. Both groups typically see Government as a provider and facilitator.
When one side holds a passion that borders on fanaticism while the other side essentially doesn't care, the outcome is predictable! The President and his supporters know this. They frantically aspire to level the playing field. The question is, "can they buy enough time to fully bring about the change they promised before the other side catches on and punches their number?"
We should have a better idea in two or three months. If Romney loses the election, we should see a major revival of the nullification argument. Nullification is the first step toward secession.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Raising the Stakes
At this writing the Presidential race is too close to call.
Polls indicate that Mr. Obama has an ever so slight advantage. Conventional(and perhaps wishful) thinking suggests that the race will a Romney landslide. Here is what we do know. The Democrats' campaign strategy is "class warfare," as predicted.
Mitt Romney in many ways is an enigma. He has never polled well with Hispanics. Florida is a must win state. All of the party elders urged him to select Florida Senator, Marco Rubio as his running mate. He chose Congressman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Ryan was a courageous choice. A 42-year-old Roman Catholic from a "blue leaning," Midwestern state, excited the conservative base. Republicans firing the opening salvos in the Medicare debate wasn't expected by the Obama camp. Give Mitt credit for throwing the opposition a curve!
The question becomes, "will it be enough?"
The more we learn about the Romney campaign, the easier it is to predict that Marco Rubio may have turned down VP slot. Mitt's campaign team is made up of Russ Schriefer, Stuart Stevens, Anna Herreberg and Andrea Saul. These were Governor, Charlie Crist's campaign handlers. Don't forget that Rubio buried Crist in a savage Senatorial campaign in 2010.
Going into the race, Rubio's chances had been rated as "slim to none." But he won and in doing so, unmasked Charlie Crist as the "Arlen Specter wing of the Republican party." Even with a sizable money advantage, including national GOP funds, the Schriefer and Stevens packaged, Crist lost.
Guess who Charlie Crist recently endorsed for president?
Republicans spent this summer learning how to like Mitt Romney. The bloody days of first quarter are in the rear view mirror. Labels such as "the Massachusetts moderate, and "Obama lite," are fading. Romney's team continues to work behind the scenes in an effort to placate Ron Paul, after snatching some of his delegates.
Not having Barack Obama in the white house for four more years is sufficient motivation for accepting Mitt Romney. And there may be enough AWM's(Angry White Men) in rust belt,. "blue" states to eek out victories. This is the reasoning behind Romney's campaign. But, what if they are wrong? What if Mitt comes up short? Then what! Four more years of the Obama nightmare? A lost country?
Obama's strategy is simple. "Haves versus have nots!" For the "haves," tell them that they need to contribute "their fair share," as in higher taxes. For the "have nots," they are America's "victims." They need more of everything, as in entitlements and "we will get them for you, if you give us another four years in the White House."
Never mind the fact that the deficit continues to grow. Who cares if food prices and energy prices continue to rise. So what if middle class America is forced to pay a hefty tax on health care. It doesn't matter if Medicare, as we know it, goes bankrupt. It shouldn't concern Americans that their country is being downsized on an International level. The important things to remember are food stamps, free cell phones, unjustified disability checks, low income housing, medical cards, A.F.D.C. checks and free college tuition!
When half of the country is paying no taxes, the end result is predictable. This is the Obama strategy. Invoke the politics of resentment. Add Americans to entitlement rolls. Grow the government.When enough people are either feeding at the government trough or on the government payroll, there should be sufficient votes to win re-election. Especially if additional help comes from extremist groups, such as the Environmental movement.
Agenda 21 is real. True, the mainstream media would like to bury it. But, it is as real as Mount Everest! Amazingly, 99.5% of the population couldn't tell you anything about it. Didn't George W. Bush supported it? Therefore, it couldn't be that bad! Right? And, if it were, why aren't Republicans talking about it? Is there something that we aren't being told?
Agenda 21 is not the subject of this post. Nor is the Council of Foreign Relations. Yet both merit intense research and discussion! So does the Federal Reserve. G. Edward Griffin's, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is a must read for anyone interested in the world monetary system, not to mention the financial welfare of our nation.
After thorough exposure to all three, it becomes increasingly apparent that to lose this election could be the end of America, as we know it! Which brings me to the next question: "Why is Mitt Romney gambling in the manner that he is?"
Marco Rubio as VP would have "iced" Florida for Romney. While Rubio predicts that the former Massachusetts governor will win Florida, it continues to be rated as a "toss-up." To lose the Sunshine state would be "end game" for Republicans, even if they win both Ohio and Wisconsin!
The "Arizona like" stance on immigration fires up elements of the Tea Party. But it could cost Republicans Hispanic votes. Colorado is a "toss-up." The state is 18% Hispanic. Nevada would have been a "slam dunk" with Rubio on the ticket. Now, it's "leaning blue." New Mexico is now likely out of reach.
Perhaps Romney's camp figures that Pennsylvania's tough voter I.D. law may discourage Democrat voters. Maybe they believe that Chris Cristie's keynote speech will sway fifty something, Roman-Catholic, Italians who happen to be Eastern Pennsylvania Democrats. Ohio could go either way. It will come down to turnout. Michigan's rural population is solidly behind Romney. But will they be able to out vote the unions, academicians and ghetto dwellers?
There was one poll that indicated that Romney enjoyed a 12-point lead in Cook County, Illinois. That's Chicago. Obama's turf. If there is any validity to that outcome, the election will be a Romney landslide! I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. What is predictable is the a close outcome with multiple cries of "voter fraud." When seven or eight states hold the key, be prepared for anything.
Are we truly prepared for a close Obama victory? The administration is! They have already authorized the Department of Homeland Security to order one million rounds of ammunition, including hollow point rounds. I thought hollow point bullets were illegal! Evidently not!
In a previous post, I predicted that the Republican party will likely split, if Romney loses. Without rehashing the fine points of that writing, the conclusion was, "at the heart of the split is sectionalism." Nobody mentioned the fact that Rubio is a Southerner. As discussed in a previous post, many outside the South are just now becoming acquainted with the South's more blurred ethnic lines.
The strength of today's Republican party has been in the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. So is the bulk of the nations energy reserves. An unfettered E.P.A. is proving daily that they are the greatest job killing entity the planet has ever known. Obviously, they are a driving force behind the Obama agenda.
The Midwest, the nation's "breadbasket" is finding more common ground with these three regions! We are enduring a bad corn harvest. 40% of that corn will be used for Ethanol, a measure that has reduced carbon emissions "marginally at best." Yet, due to this misuse of a precious commodity, less will be available for livestock. The result: "Higher beef and pork prices!" Furthermore, we are learning about new oil, natural gas and coal finds throughout this region. Indiana recently became a "right-to-work" state. We all watched the Wisconsin recall attempt last summer! Stay tuned!
People are hurting. High priced energy forces families to lower their standard of living. Amazingly, this seems to be the centerpiece of the Obama plan for America. True, he talks about "middle class justice." But higher gasoline, electricity, medical and food prices don't discriminate! When people are educated to what Agenda 21 truly would involve, it all makes sense!
Therefore, we all must get behind the Romney campaign and hope for the best. Right? Well, hopefully he can provide an acceptable alternative! Or, at least, slow down the inevitable! That's what much of our GOP leadership would encourage. These Republicans would be satisfied with with "slowing down the inevitable!"
A few of us will not be satisfied with "slowing down the inevitable." In fact, there are some who would be ready to completely "ditch" the president's glorious vision! The alternative: "a return to real American values and a system that has been the envy of the entire world."
The question becomes, "how?" The die has been cast for this November. We will either have Obama. Or, we will have someone who will likely be a combination of Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton. The Romney campaign is banking on an economy that is so bad and a population that is so weary of it, that they will merely vote against Obama. It might work! If it does, we can sigh with relief and say, "it could have been worse!" But what if Mitt Romney comes close, tallying 220 or 230 electoral college votes, but still loses?
What if there are two or three contested states? What if final outcomes are disputed?
Pundits would muse that "Romney made a race of it and although he lost, the Republicans will learn from the experience and come back in 2016 wiser." The problem is, "we may not recognize our country in 2016!" Losing this election is simply not an option!
As difficult as it may be for a lot of Americans to grasp, we are approaching a fork in the road. Hopefully, we aren't there yet. But indications are stacking on the side of our ultimate American moment of truth. Which is, "can we as fifty states remain together when we are so divided on several issues?"
Compounding this problem is the divide in the Republican party. The conservative base is slowly concluding that Northeastern Republicans are more akin to Democrats. The base was severely antagonized by a Romney primary campaign that held no punches. At best 25% of the party base listed Romney as their first choice. For Romney to lose the election, would accelerate a probable divorce!
That's why a "peaceful separation" of the states should be on the table in the event that Obama is re-elected. New Englanders wouldn't see this. New York City dwellers would think it insane! But what about the energy states? What about the farm states? What about the states opposing Obamacare? What about states that are seeking a return to a more literal interpretation of the 10th amendment?
As in 1861, it wouldn't happen all at once. States with Republican Governors would start the procession. Then would come energy states that might have Democrat governors. It is conceivable that some states might divide. In the end, look for 60% to 90% of the states to abandon Barack Obama's America.
Unlike 1861, we are not living in the "age of innocence." Nobody is going to relish a shooting war. True, some militant groups, such as the Black Panthers might try to seize the moment. But, don't count on the United States armed forces to fire on it's own citizens. It has been suggested that an Obama on the ropes might appeal to the United Nations for help. Good luck! He would be inviting them to participate in their own suicides!
There are a lot of Americans willing to introduce this potentially apocalyptic scenario, as an alternative to a continued Obama presidency. Without question it would raise the stakes of the election. And, in doing so, it would unleash a myriad of hypothetical options! Some of these "options" would become increasingly attractive as the discussion lingered.
Could such talk make a difference in the November election? Probably not. Like Agenda 21, it would be buried by the mainstream media. Since it would propose moving the nation's sphere of influence from New York City to another locale, the concept of a "New Republic" would be ridiculed and chastised by media moguls. They would be the biggest losers, since foreign ownership of broadcast properties is prohibited.
What about Wall Street and the banking interests? The "Outside Wall Street" movement was initially a protest to a large wealth transfer that began in 1997. It later became "freebies for rabble." However, the original intent could easily wrap it's arms around a "peaceful separation" of states. If, repudiation of mortgage and student loan debt became part of the discussion!
The status quot hopes that Romney will win a decisive victory November 6th. Then, the Keynesian's will have their polished product in place. They might just get their wish; assuming the economy stays sour and Romney makes no more mistakes!
Obama scares people. His is a history of disturbing and disquieting tidbits of not so normal associations and experiences. Fabians are patient. Obama seems anything but that. The last thing needed is an extremist awakening a sleeping giant.
Polls indicate that Mr. Obama has an ever so slight advantage. Conventional(and perhaps wishful) thinking suggests that the race will a Romney landslide. Here is what we do know. The Democrats' campaign strategy is "class warfare," as predicted.
Mitt Romney in many ways is an enigma. He has never polled well with Hispanics. Florida is a must win state. All of the party elders urged him to select Florida Senator, Marco Rubio as his running mate. He chose Congressman, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Ryan was a courageous choice. A 42-year-old Roman Catholic from a "blue leaning," Midwestern state, excited the conservative base. Republicans firing the opening salvos in the Medicare debate wasn't expected by the Obama camp. Give Mitt credit for throwing the opposition a curve!
The question becomes, "will it be enough?"
The more we learn about the Romney campaign, the easier it is to predict that Marco Rubio may have turned down VP slot. Mitt's campaign team is made up of Russ Schriefer, Stuart Stevens, Anna Herreberg and Andrea Saul. These were Governor, Charlie Crist's campaign handlers. Don't forget that Rubio buried Crist in a savage Senatorial campaign in 2010.
Going into the race, Rubio's chances had been rated as "slim to none." But he won and in doing so, unmasked Charlie Crist as the "Arlen Specter wing of the Republican party." Even with a sizable money advantage, including national GOP funds, the Schriefer and Stevens packaged, Crist lost.
Guess who Charlie Crist recently endorsed for president?
Republicans spent this summer learning how to like Mitt Romney. The bloody days of first quarter are in the rear view mirror. Labels such as "the Massachusetts moderate, and "Obama lite," are fading. Romney's team continues to work behind the scenes in an effort to placate Ron Paul, after snatching some of his delegates.
Not having Barack Obama in the white house for four more years is sufficient motivation for accepting Mitt Romney. And there may be enough AWM's(Angry White Men) in rust belt,. "blue" states to eek out victories. This is the reasoning behind Romney's campaign. But, what if they are wrong? What if Mitt comes up short? Then what! Four more years of the Obama nightmare? A lost country?
Obama's strategy is simple. "Haves versus have nots!" For the "haves," tell them that they need to contribute "their fair share," as in higher taxes. For the "have nots," they are America's "victims." They need more of everything, as in entitlements and "we will get them for you, if you give us another four years in the White House."
Never mind the fact that the deficit continues to grow. Who cares if food prices and energy prices continue to rise. So what if middle class America is forced to pay a hefty tax on health care. It doesn't matter if Medicare, as we know it, goes bankrupt. It shouldn't concern Americans that their country is being downsized on an International level. The important things to remember are food stamps, free cell phones, unjustified disability checks, low income housing, medical cards, A.F.D.C. checks and free college tuition!
When half of the country is paying no taxes, the end result is predictable. This is the Obama strategy. Invoke the politics of resentment. Add Americans to entitlement rolls. Grow the government.When enough people are either feeding at the government trough or on the government payroll, there should be sufficient votes to win re-election. Especially if additional help comes from extremist groups, such as the Environmental movement.
Agenda 21 is real. True, the mainstream media would like to bury it. But, it is as real as Mount Everest! Amazingly, 99.5% of the population couldn't tell you anything about it. Didn't George W. Bush supported it? Therefore, it couldn't be that bad! Right? And, if it were, why aren't Republicans talking about it? Is there something that we aren't being told?
Agenda 21 is not the subject of this post. Nor is the Council of Foreign Relations. Yet both merit intense research and discussion! So does the Federal Reserve. G. Edward Griffin's, "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is a must read for anyone interested in the world monetary system, not to mention the financial welfare of our nation.
After thorough exposure to all three, it becomes increasingly apparent that to lose this election could be the end of America, as we know it! Which brings me to the next question: "Why is Mitt Romney gambling in the manner that he is?"
Marco Rubio as VP would have "iced" Florida for Romney. While Rubio predicts that the former Massachusetts governor will win Florida, it continues to be rated as a "toss-up." To lose the Sunshine state would be "end game" for Republicans, even if they win both Ohio and Wisconsin!
The "Arizona like" stance on immigration fires up elements of the Tea Party. But it could cost Republicans Hispanic votes. Colorado is a "toss-up." The state is 18% Hispanic. Nevada would have been a "slam dunk" with Rubio on the ticket. Now, it's "leaning blue." New Mexico is now likely out of reach.
Perhaps Romney's camp figures that Pennsylvania's tough voter I.D. law may discourage Democrat voters. Maybe they believe that Chris Cristie's keynote speech will sway fifty something, Roman-Catholic, Italians who happen to be Eastern Pennsylvania Democrats. Ohio could go either way. It will come down to turnout. Michigan's rural population is solidly behind Romney. But will they be able to out vote the unions, academicians and ghetto dwellers?
There was one poll that indicated that Romney enjoyed a 12-point lead in Cook County, Illinois. That's Chicago. Obama's turf. If there is any validity to that outcome, the election will be a Romney landslide! I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. What is predictable is the a close outcome with multiple cries of "voter fraud." When seven or eight states hold the key, be prepared for anything.
Are we truly prepared for a close Obama victory? The administration is! They have already authorized the Department of Homeland Security to order one million rounds of ammunition, including hollow point rounds. I thought hollow point bullets were illegal! Evidently not!
In a previous post, I predicted that the Republican party will likely split, if Romney loses. Without rehashing the fine points of that writing, the conclusion was, "at the heart of the split is sectionalism." Nobody mentioned the fact that Rubio is a Southerner. As discussed in a previous post, many outside the South are just now becoming acquainted with the South's more blurred ethnic lines.
The strength of today's Republican party has been in the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. So is the bulk of the nations energy reserves. An unfettered E.P.A. is proving daily that they are the greatest job killing entity the planet has ever known. Obviously, they are a driving force behind the Obama agenda.
The Midwest, the nation's "breadbasket" is finding more common ground with these three regions! We are enduring a bad corn harvest. 40% of that corn will be used for Ethanol, a measure that has reduced carbon emissions "marginally at best." Yet, due to this misuse of a precious commodity, less will be available for livestock. The result: "Higher beef and pork prices!" Furthermore, we are learning about new oil, natural gas and coal finds throughout this region. Indiana recently became a "right-to-work" state. We all watched the Wisconsin recall attempt last summer! Stay tuned!
People are hurting. High priced energy forces families to lower their standard of living. Amazingly, this seems to be the centerpiece of the Obama plan for America. True, he talks about "middle class justice." But higher gasoline, electricity, medical and food prices don't discriminate! When people are educated to what Agenda 21 truly would involve, it all makes sense!
Therefore, we all must get behind the Romney campaign and hope for the best. Right? Well, hopefully he can provide an acceptable alternative! Or, at least, slow down the inevitable! That's what much of our GOP leadership would encourage. These Republicans would be satisfied with with "slowing down the inevitable!"
A few of us will not be satisfied with "slowing down the inevitable." In fact, there are some who would be ready to completely "ditch" the president's glorious vision! The alternative: "a return to real American values and a system that has been the envy of the entire world."
The question becomes, "how?" The die has been cast for this November. We will either have Obama. Or, we will have someone who will likely be a combination of Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton. The Romney campaign is banking on an economy that is so bad and a population that is so weary of it, that they will merely vote against Obama. It might work! If it does, we can sigh with relief and say, "it could have been worse!" But what if Mitt Romney comes close, tallying 220 or 230 electoral college votes, but still loses?
What if there are two or three contested states? What if final outcomes are disputed?
Pundits would muse that "Romney made a race of it and although he lost, the Republicans will learn from the experience and come back in 2016 wiser." The problem is, "we may not recognize our country in 2016!" Losing this election is simply not an option!
As difficult as it may be for a lot of Americans to grasp, we are approaching a fork in the road. Hopefully, we aren't there yet. But indications are stacking on the side of our ultimate American moment of truth. Which is, "can we as fifty states remain together when we are so divided on several issues?"
Compounding this problem is the divide in the Republican party. The conservative base is slowly concluding that Northeastern Republicans are more akin to Democrats. The base was severely antagonized by a Romney primary campaign that held no punches. At best 25% of the party base listed Romney as their first choice. For Romney to lose the election, would accelerate a probable divorce!
That's why a "peaceful separation" of the states should be on the table in the event that Obama is re-elected. New Englanders wouldn't see this. New York City dwellers would think it insane! But what about the energy states? What about the farm states? What about the states opposing Obamacare? What about states that are seeking a return to a more literal interpretation of the 10th amendment?
As in 1861, it wouldn't happen all at once. States with Republican Governors would start the procession. Then would come energy states that might have Democrat governors. It is conceivable that some states might divide. In the end, look for 60% to 90% of the states to abandon Barack Obama's America.
Unlike 1861, we are not living in the "age of innocence." Nobody is going to relish a shooting war. True, some militant groups, such as the Black Panthers might try to seize the moment. But, don't count on the United States armed forces to fire on it's own citizens. It has been suggested that an Obama on the ropes might appeal to the United Nations for help. Good luck! He would be inviting them to participate in their own suicides!
There are a lot of Americans willing to introduce this potentially apocalyptic scenario, as an alternative to a continued Obama presidency. Without question it would raise the stakes of the election. And, in doing so, it would unleash a myriad of hypothetical options! Some of these "options" would become increasingly attractive as the discussion lingered.
Could such talk make a difference in the November election? Probably not. Like Agenda 21, it would be buried by the mainstream media. Since it would propose moving the nation's sphere of influence from New York City to another locale, the concept of a "New Republic" would be ridiculed and chastised by media moguls. They would be the biggest losers, since foreign ownership of broadcast properties is prohibited.
What about Wall Street and the banking interests? The "Outside Wall Street" movement was initially a protest to a large wealth transfer that began in 1997. It later became "freebies for rabble." However, the original intent could easily wrap it's arms around a "peaceful separation" of states. If, repudiation of mortgage and student loan debt became part of the discussion!
The status quot hopes that Romney will win a decisive victory November 6th. Then, the Keynesian's will have their polished product in place. They might just get their wish; assuming the economy stays sour and Romney makes no more mistakes!
Obama scares people. His is a history of disturbing and disquieting tidbits of not so normal associations and experiences. Fabians are patient. Obama seems anything but that. The last thing needed is an extremist awakening a sleeping giant.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Understanding the South's "Perfect Society" Theory
Recounting the South's "perfect society theory" is something that most revisionist historians consider "best forgotten." While revealing, it painfully exposes both an ugly side and a profoundly beautiful secret of 18th and 19th century America.
During this period of Europeon settlement, nationalities were merged. In the north, this was a more deliberate process. It was quite common to see Italians, Irish, Polish, Swedish and Germans congregating to the same neighborhoods, churches, stores, taverns and livery stables because they shared a common language. Gradually, they assimulated and in doing so, intermarried. Yet, deeply ingrained prejudices persisted.
In the South, things were slightly different. While it's true that more immigrants came from England, Scotland and Ireland, there was strong representation from non-English speaking countries. French, Spanish, Dutch, German and Italian immigrants were sometimes the majority in their counties. But, acceptance by the English speaking majority came as quickly as their learning the language.
Why was this?
Former Louisiana State University Boyd Professor, William Cooper described the South as having "a perfect society." In short, "no matter where you came from, no matter how rich or poor that you were, you were always a rung above the slave."
This included native Americans and people of color. Even when slavery ended the practice of "blurred if not non existent ethnic lines" continued to be the norm.
For those who have spent time in Texas, it can be observed how Mexican Americans are considered, "Texans first." You don't observe the same connection in California, a state that was largely settled by northerners.
Southerners urged President, James Buchannon to purchase Cuba from Spain in 1857. Not because they wanted to exploit the island! Southern politicians recognized Cuba's agrarian economy and plantation culture. They were eager to welcome Cuba into the American family, as a state will all of the privileges that accompanied statehood.
Buchannon, a Pennsylvanian knew that Kansas and Nebraska were on tap for statehood. He understood that the added representation of two new "free" states could be offset by allowing Texas to split into two states and admitting Cuba.
While the focus has been traditionally on the slavery issue, little is mentioned about what would have amounted to "immediate acceptance of Cuba's Spanish speaking population." English would have been taught in Cuban schools. But, it would have been similar to Louisiana, where most of the Southern part of the state continued to utilize French as it's primary language well into the 20th century.
Most significantly, there was not a "class system based on whether you were English, Spanish, French or whatever!" You were simply Americans and Southerners. Everyone wanted to learn English because it was practical and gave them access to more information.
There was never the same level of religious prejudice in the south. This included a lesser degree of anti-semitism. Many are astounded to learn that Jefferson Davis' Attorney General and most trusted advisor was Judah H. Benjamin of Louisiana, an orthodox Jew. Benjamin was touted as the "finest legal mind in the south." He was seen as a Southerner first and while some disliked him, it had more to do with his personality than his religious preference.
There are writings about the Normalacy Klansmen in the South who were openly antagonistic to Jews and Catholics. But this came much later. In the 19th century, the standard prevailed. It has since returned.
Ethnic groups are all but non-existent in the south. Even in heavily Spanish concentrated areas such as South Florida and South Texas, it is simply a matter of time before natives assimulate and become Texans and Floridians. Most native Southerners see this as the norm. There has never been anything close to the ethic prejudice seen in the North.
Can the nation follow the Southern example?
I think they will. English, as the official language makes ethnic desegregation easier. Once we are all speaking the same first language, we start the quick process of dismissing our differences and accensuating our commonalities. We become more sensitive to issues that effect us all.
A prime example was the Texas out-of-state tuition waiver for children of illegal aliens. This surfaced in the 201l Republican presidential debates and contributed to Mitt Romney's nomination.
Texans overwhelmingly voted to extend it. Not because they wanted to reward lawbreakers or promote amnesty! It was simply the practical remedy to a failed national immigration policy. And, it was a matter of compassion!
Northerners, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney didn't see it that way! They made it clear that the Texas approach was the wrong approach. Texas Governor, Rick Perry was demonized for his defense of a Texas legislative vote of 177 to 4 in favor of the waiver!
One key difference that must be noted! Perry is a Southerner. He is a fifth generation Texan. He didn't see these children as liabilities. He saw them as assets. Above all, he saw them as Texans.
This is where the general misunderstanding of Southerners is most manifested. Did anyone believe that the children should be denied the waiver because they were mostly Hispanic? No. In fact, the nationality of the parents hardly entered anyones' mind! It was more a question of "what would be the most constructive way to fix a problem that the federal government created?"
Are we suggesting that Northerners all hold deep rooted ethnic prejudices? Not really. But we are acknowledging that ethnic differences are more readily highlighted in the north. To Southerners, it didn't bear the same level of importance.
There was also the deep rooted Southern reverence for the 10th amendment. As Governor Perry correctly phraised, "under the constitution, in accordance to the 10th amendment, this is Texas' decision." In the thinking of Bachmann, Santorum and Romney, those students had broken the law. It was beyond their comprehension that some good might actually come from developing them, as opposed to punishing them. In the eyes of Texas' legislature, "two wrongs didn't make a right."
It goes back to the fact that these students had been accepted as Texans. They weren't Hispanics or Latinos. They were simply Texans.
History has always attempted to paint the Southern states as "racist or anti-black." One detail that is often overlooked is the fact that on April 2nd, 1865, the Confederate Congress approved the drafting of slaves for military service, with the promise of freedom upon honorable discharge. Symbolically, this confirmed the intention of the South to welcome slaves into the Confederate nation as Southerners.
In short, the South is a society largely unfettered by ethnic differences. This could be a critical factor in the event that the states decide to separate. Could this actually happen? It happened in 1861! The nation is arguably as divided today as it was in 1861. There is one key difference.
In 1861 the North was fighting to preserve the Union. In 2012 there is no slavery issue. But preserving the Union as we know it, is on a lot of minds. In the end, the South's "perfect society" may be the nation's salvation. In it's reasoning comes triumph over the "diversity cultists" who will make every attempt to "balkanize" America.
During this period of Europeon settlement, nationalities were merged. In the north, this was a more deliberate process. It was quite common to see Italians, Irish, Polish, Swedish and Germans congregating to the same neighborhoods, churches, stores, taverns and livery stables because they shared a common language. Gradually, they assimulated and in doing so, intermarried. Yet, deeply ingrained prejudices persisted.
In the South, things were slightly different. While it's true that more immigrants came from England, Scotland and Ireland, there was strong representation from non-English speaking countries. French, Spanish, Dutch, German and Italian immigrants were sometimes the majority in their counties. But, acceptance by the English speaking majority came as quickly as their learning the language.
Why was this?
Former Louisiana State University Boyd Professor, William Cooper described the South as having "a perfect society." In short, "no matter where you came from, no matter how rich or poor that you were, you were always a rung above the slave."
This included native Americans and people of color. Even when slavery ended the practice of "blurred if not non existent ethnic lines" continued to be the norm.
For those who have spent time in Texas, it can be observed how Mexican Americans are considered, "Texans first." You don't observe the same connection in California, a state that was largely settled by northerners.
Southerners urged President, James Buchannon to purchase Cuba from Spain in 1857. Not because they wanted to exploit the island! Southern politicians recognized Cuba's agrarian economy and plantation culture. They were eager to welcome Cuba into the American family, as a state will all of the privileges that accompanied statehood.
Buchannon, a Pennsylvanian knew that Kansas and Nebraska were on tap for statehood. He understood that the added representation of two new "free" states could be offset by allowing Texas to split into two states and admitting Cuba.
While the focus has been traditionally on the slavery issue, little is mentioned about what would have amounted to "immediate acceptance of Cuba's Spanish speaking population." English would have been taught in Cuban schools. But, it would have been similar to Louisiana, where most of the Southern part of the state continued to utilize French as it's primary language well into the 20th century.
Most significantly, there was not a "class system based on whether you were English, Spanish, French or whatever!" You were simply Americans and Southerners. Everyone wanted to learn English because it was practical and gave them access to more information.
There was never the same level of religious prejudice in the south. This included a lesser degree of anti-semitism. Many are astounded to learn that Jefferson Davis' Attorney General and most trusted advisor was Judah H. Benjamin of Louisiana, an orthodox Jew. Benjamin was touted as the "finest legal mind in the south." He was seen as a Southerner first and while some disliked him, it had more to do with his personality than his religious preference.
There are writings about the Normalacy Klansmen in the South who were openly antagonistic to Jews and Catholics. But this came much later. In the 19th century, the standard prevailed. It has since returned.
Ethnic groups are all but non-existent in the south. Even in heavily Spanish concentrated areas such as South Florida and South Texas, it is simply a matter of time before natives assimulate and become Texans and Floridians. Most native Southerners see this as the norm. There has never been anything close to the ethic prejudice seen in the North.
Can the nation follow the Southern example?
I think they will. English, as the official language makes ethnic desegregation easier. Once we are all speaking the same first language, we start the quick process of dismissing our differences and accensuating our commonalities. We become more sensitive to issues that effect us all.
A prime example was the Texas out-of-state tuition waiver for children of illegal aliens. This surfaced in the 201l Republican presidential debates and contributed to Mitt Romney's nomination.
Texans overwhelmingly voted to extend it. Not because they wanted to reward lawbreakers or promote amnesty! It was simply the practical remedy to a failed national immigration policy. And, it was a matter of compassion!
Northerners, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman and Mitt Romney didn't see it that way! They made it clear that the Texas approach was the wrong approach. Texas Governor, Rick Perry was demonized for his defense of a Texas legislative vote of 177 to 4 in favor of the waiver!
One key difference that must be noted! Perry is a Southerner. He is a fifth generation Texan. He didn't see these children as liabilities. He saw them as assets. Above all, he saw them as Texans.
This is where the general misunderstanding of Southerners is most manifested. Did anyone believe that the children should be denied the waiver because they were mostly Hispanic? No. In fact, the nationality of the parents hardly entered anyones' mind! It was more a question of "what would be the most constructive way to fix a problem that the federal government created?"
Are we suggesting that Northerners all hold deep rooted ethnic prejudices? Not really. But we are acknowledging that ethnic differences are more readily highlighted in the north. To Southerners, it didn't bear the same level of importance.
There was also the deep rooted Southern reverence for the 10th amendment. As Governor Perry correctly phraised, "under the constitution, in accordance to the 10th amendment, this is Texas' decision." In the thinking of Bachmann, Santorum and Romney, those students had broken the law. It was beyond their comprehension that some good might actually come from developing them, as opposed to punishing them. In the eyes of Texas' legislature, "two wrongs didn't make a right."
It goes back to the fact that these students had been accepted as Texans. They weren't Hispanics or Latinos. They were simply Texans.
History has always attempted to paint the Southern states as "racist or anti-black." One detail that is often overlooked is the fact that on April 2nd, 1865, the Confederate Congress approved the drafting of slaves for military service, with the promise of freedom upon honorable discharge. Symbolically, this confirmed the intention of the South to welcome slaves into the Confederate nation as Southerners.
In short, the South is a society largely unfettered by ethnic differences. This could be a critical factor in the event that the states decide to separate. Could this actually happen? It happened in 1861! The nation is arguably as divided today as it was in 1861. There is one key difference.
In 1861 the North was fighting to preserve the Union. In 2012 there is no slavery issue. But preserving the Union as we know it, is on a lot of minds. In the end, the South's "perfect society" may be the nation's salvation. In it's reasoning comes triumph over the "diversity cultists" who will make every attempt to "balkanize" America.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Identity Theft Prevention- A Winning Issue for Mitt Romney
Where oh WHERE are Mitt Romney's advisors?
An economy that rivals America in 1934, gasoline prices headed out the roof, jobs leaving our shores daily and there seems to be no end to the madness! Yet, the President still continues to pound on his opponent's liabilities. Amazingly, some are actually buying it!
Common sense dictated that Mitt Romney would face a class warfare campaign if nominated. This blog had predicted as much last summer. The politics of resentment are strong. Especially when a lot of folks aren't doing so hot! Fortunately for Romney, there is an issue that neither side has picked up on. Maybe it's time he enlightened America.
Identity theft is the fastest growing crime in America. As a business man, Romney is in an ideal position to point it out to everyone, including the President. Better yet, he can introduce a solution that crosses party lines and rubs salve into a visable and growing sore.
If you are looking for an issue to unite the country look no further than "offshore outsourcing." Americans are furious, genuinely livid over the practice. Companies contend that it is the result of high corporate taxes and excessive regulation. This is true. Yet, neither side wants to find a middle ground.
Most Democrats favor a tax on offshore outsoucing. But few are ready to seriously cut the corporate tax rate. Never mind that it is now the world's highest!
I am certain that Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey would readily vote for an outsourcing tax. But would they do it if it meant returning E.P.A. jurisdiction to the states in accordance to the 10th amendment? No way!
Where does Mitt Romney stand? We expect him to be more business friendly than Obama. But will it be enough? And will he tell business that they must bring the jobs home or else? Probably not. However, it's predictable that he will push for a corporate tax reduction. And so it goes.
This kind of discussion typically leaves Americans with the conclusion of "same old, same old." A little here. A little there. Perhaps some marginal improvement. But we are still evading the issue.
That issue is privacy. Statistically it's fact that identity theft has mushroomed with the increase of offshore oursourcing. Where and why?
The "where" is easy! Look at the banks, credit card, and debt recovery industries. Have you noticed how many are employing help from beyond our borders. Call Trans Union. Call Equifax. Guess what! You will be talking to "Jerry from New Dehli, John from Taiwan or Pricilla from Manilla." Not to impugn these fine people! It's just that we can't check them out like someone stateside.
Here is where Mitt Romney can hit a home run with the American people; in the name of knowing and understanding business. Unlike his counterpart, a "nice guy but clueless where business is concerned," the former Massachusetts Governor can offer a sensible solution. "Let's make it unlawful to outsource offshore any job utilizing all or part of an Americans social security number."
Wow! Mitt magically introduces legislation that will return tens of thousands of jobs to our shores. Talk about a "grand slam home run!" Yes, we're talking about tens of thousands of jobs that would pay less than $10 per hour. In fact, a lot of these positions would pay $7.25 per hour. Without question, the banks and collection agencies would howl! $7.25 may be minimum wage in this country. But the majority of their offshore help is fortunate to be paid one-third of that rate!
Romney's argument would evoke Patriotism. It would go like this: "Many of the recipients of these jobs would be sixty years of age and older. These workers are dependable, punctual, loyal and have no issues at home. They will be happy to work for $290 per week. Because, they will gain access to their employers group health insurance plan. Best of all, they will not compromise their social security entitlement!
A strong case could be made that these older workers will be three times as efficient as "Jerry from New Dehil, John from Taiwan or Pricilla from Manilla." It would begin with their superior English language skills.
Many offshore employees have only "some working use" of English. In other words, they can read an English script, but can't answer questions in English. Some have accents so think that it practically takes a translator to understand them. It adds up to inexpert, inefficient and unqualified help. Not to mention a potential compormise of an Americans' privacy!
In the end, Romney makes a sound argument that creates jobs while attacking a growing problem in America. In the meantime, he positions Barack Obama as "the nice guy who is clueless about real problems because he has never worked in the private sector." In other words, "why didn't YOU think of this great idea, Mr. President? Don't answer that! I already have!
An economy that rivals America in 1934, gasoline prices headed out the roof, jobs leaving our shores daily and there seems to be no end to the madness! Yet, the President still continues to pound on his opponent's liabilities. Amazingly, some are actually buying it!
Common sense dictated that Mitt Romney would face a class warfare campaign if nominated. This blog had predicted as much last summer. The politics of resentment are strong. Especially when a lot of folks aren't doing so hot! Fortunately for Romney, there is an issue that neither side has picked up on. Maybe it's time he enlightened America.
Identity theft is the fastest growing crime in America. As a business man, Romney is in an ideal position to point it out to everyone, including the President. Better yet, he can introduce a solution that crosses party lines and rubs salve into a visable and growing sore.
If you are looking for an issue to unite the country look no further than "offshore outsourcing." Americans are furious, genuinely livid over the practice. Companies contend that it is the result of high corporate taxes and excessive regulation. This is true. Yet, neither side wants to find a middle ground.
Most Democrats favor a tax on offshore outsoucing. But few are ready to seriously cut the corporate tax rate. Never mind that it is now the world's highest!
I am certain that Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey would readily vote for an outsourcing tax. But would they do it if it meant returning E.P.A. jurisdiction to the states in accordance to the 10th amendment? No way!
Where does Mitt Romney stand? We expect him to be more business friendly than Obama. But will it be enough? And will he tell business that they must bring the jobs home or else? Probably not. However, it's predictable that he will push for a corporate tax reduction. And so it goes.
This kind of discussion typically leaves Americans with the conclusion of "same old, same old." A little here. A little there. Perhaps some marginal improvement. But we are still evading the issue.
That issue is privacy. Statistically it's fact that identity theft has mushroomed with the increase of offshore oursourcing. Where and why?
The "where" is easy! Look at the banks, credit card, and debt recovery industries. Have you noticed how many are employing help from beyond our borders. Call Trans Union. Call Equifax. Guess what! You will be talking to "Jerry from New Dehli, John from Taiwan or Pricilla from Manilla." Not to impugn these fine people! It's just that we can't check them out like someone stateside.
Here is where Mitt Romney can hit a home run with the American people; in the name of knowing and understanding business. Unlike his counterpart, a "nice guy but clueless where business is concerned," the former Massachusetts Governor can offer a sensible solution. "Let's make it unlawful to outsource offshore any job utilizing all or part of an Americans social security number."
Wow! Mitt magically introduces legislation that will return tens of thousands of jobs to our shores. Talk about a "grand slam home run!" Yes, we're talking about tens of thousands of jobs that would pay less than $10 per hour. In fact, a lot of these positions would pay $7.25 per hour. Without question, the banks and collection agencies would howl! $7.25 may be minimum wage in this country. But the majority of their offshore help is fortunate to be paid one-third of that rate!
Romney's argument would evoke Patriotism. It would go like this: "Many of the recipients of these jobs would be sixty years of age and older. These workers are dependable, punctual, loyal and have no issues at home. They will be happy to work for $290 per week. Because, they will gain access to their employers group health insurance plan. Best of all, they will not compromise their social security entitlement!
A strong case could be made that these older workers will be three times as efficient as "Jerry from New Dehil, John from Taiwan or Pricilla from Manilla." It would begin with their superior English language skills.
Many offshore employees have only "some working use" of English. In other words, they can read an English script, but can't answer questions in English. Some have accents so think that it practically takes a translator to understand them. It adds up to inexpert, inefficient and unqualified help. Not to mention a potential compormise of an Americans' privacy!
In the end, Romney makes a sound argument that creates jobs while attacking a growing problem in America. In the meantime, he positions Barack Obama as "the nice guy who is clueless about real problems because he has never worked in the private sector." In other words, "why didn't YOU think of this great idea, Mr. President? Don't answer that! I already have!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)