Decision Time for Conservatives

Bill O'Reilly put it best: "Obama promised people a lot of stuff!"

So it went. The cagey president and his camp put together a brilliant campaign. They built a coalition around two basic groups: (a) The "bought and paid fors," and (b) those who had "no skin in the game." Then, they turned on a competent, yet "difficult to identify with" Republican challenger and pushed all of the right buttons. It worked.

We could write chronicles about why Mitt Romney might have trouble winning the general election. True, he was as able as could be found. But "able" and "electable" aren't synonymous. The majority of the party didn't support him in the primaries. There was and will be continued resentment for the manner that the Republican Establishment shoved Mitt Romney down the throats of conservatives.

 Romney was graciously accepted and supported by all party members. In fact, it looked good for the Massachusetts Governor on the eve of the election. When the votes were tallied, the original concerns surfaced.

The Election may have been lost in a Tea Party debate last year. When Texas Governor Rick Perry attempted to defend his state's decision to grant in-state tuition to children of illegal aliens, the true face of the party was revealed. Perry's candidacy never recovered. Governor Romney saw it as opening and took the contrary position. It helped him win the nomination. But he paid the price on November 6th.  In short, his hard line position on immigration turned off many who would have ordinarily voted Republican. 

Republicans had little margin for error. Demographically, the nation is changing at warp speed. Leaders like Perry and Jeb Bush were quick to note this. It is my belief that either would have defeated Barack Obama in the general election.

Bush wasn't interested in running for President. Unfortunately for Perry, the same problem that plagued Republicans in 2008 struck! Two "blue states," Iowa and New Hampshire determined the nominee. Had the initial primaries been held in Arkansas and Wyoming, he would have wrapped up the nomination by the end of February! 

Sadly for Republicans, this wasn't the case. A flawed primary system resulted in their nominating the wrong opponent for Barack Obama.

So, we are now staring into a  frightening abyss. We can do what Republican Establishment types would suggest and "hope" that Barack Obama will do an about face. Or, we can live with the sobering reality that our nation as we know it is doomed. When we accept the latter, it becomes easier to take steps toward reversing 2012's calamity.

Not since 1861 has the nation  been as divided as it is today. We are divided on three core issues: Right-to-Work, Health care and Energy.  No middle ground is in sight. We can quietly acquiesce. Or, we can resist, changing the outcome of the election. A strong case can be made for the latter.

Barack Obama did everything humanly possible to divide America. He built a constituency around racial minorities, gays, unions, public sector employees, and angry liberals. His methodology was "class warfare." He had unwavering support from a mainstream media that redefined "bias." His agenda is the most radical in history.  We can live with it. Or, we can withdraw from it.

Any constitutional scholar will attest to the fact that "secession is legal, under the constitution." But, could it really happen?
 
Looking closely at the "nayers," we see those same Establishment Republicans who blew the 2012 election.  Tea Party members might see it differently. Ironically, the step of a 'peaceful separation," might be surprisingly easy!

This isn't 1861. We do not live in the "Age of Innocence." Americans are not going to endure an 1860's style bloodbath! Obama's supporters are a combination of "educated idiots, social misfits, wily opportunists, and rabble." They know that they would be no match for the 50% who voted for Mitt Romney!

Furthermore, these 50% who supported Romney represent 90% of the gun owners. Obama and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton are keenly aware of this.

Therefore, if the states, one by one, elect to withdraw from the Union, little challenge will follow. True, there would be some bluster on the part of Obama. He might even threaten the departing states. But, he would know that if a confrontation came, he would be on the wrong side of history.

Actually, the advantages for a new Republic are far greater than most imagine! In looking at the November 6th electoral map, it's is highly probable that all states that broke for Mitt Romney, plus Florida, Virginia, Colorado and New Mexico would come together. This amounts to 27 states. There is an excellent chance that Nevada plus California, south of the 37th parallel would be 28th and 29th.

 Most of the nations farmland and natural resources would be in their hands of 160 million people. They would be joined by approximately 50 million "immigrants" from the Obama held states. Perhaps half that number would head north, in search of Obama's gifts and freebie's!

The greatest benefit for departure would be "leaving behind the gorilla," also known as the massive Washington bureaucracy. We could save Social Security and Medicare. We could provide tuition help for our college students. And, we would be delivered from the "monsters," AKA Education, Energy and the E.P.A.!

Some would ask about establishment of a banking system. Enter still another benefit! Globalist bankers, headquartered in New York and Europe have systematically stolen from our people for the past 100 years. It began with the advent of the Federal Reserve. "Inflation" was their tool.

The new Republic would insist on a "repayment plan.' It would start with repudiation of all home mortgage and student loan debt owed to the Eastern bankers. For those who owed nothing, federal land grants would be awarded.

What about the military?

This is the potential "wild card," that merits some consideration. After the previous War Between the States, attention was given to insure that the existing soldiers could not merely resign their commissions. Would they fight for Barack Obama in the event that he ordered them to invade departing states? 

Nobody truly knows! Firing on Americans would be difficult. For starters, it would be unconstitutional. But this president has never been deterred by the constitution! What would be a greater problem would be sheer numbers. The military would be hopelessly outnumbered by an armed opponent. Even with the world's finest technology, it would be difficult. Not to mention politically dangerous. Many nations would applaud the departing states. Smart money would suggest that a large number of men and women in the armed forces would desert, returning to their home states.

Who would lead such a "peaceful separation?

We would need a multi-talented group of Patriots, beginning with a president who had extensive executive experience, military experience, and energy experience. Equally important would be the ability to implement the south's "perfect society theory," discussed in a previous post. The new Republic would adopt the Confederacy's "one, six-year" presidential term and "line item veto."

There would be an immediate push to commence construction on a railroad that would connect Montana to Alaska. Most are unaware of the provision made during World War II that allows the United States to build a railroad on either side of the Alaska Highway at any time in the future. It would be important to connect the "Last Frontier" to the rest of the Republic by rail.

Odds are the new Republic would return to the Gold Standard! With the E.P.A. now part of a "foreign country," there would be no impediment toward extracting the 750 billion dollar gold find at Bristol Bay!

 A constitutional convention would be held. Key leaders from the states would formulate a government that would be "10th amendment focused and fiscally responsible." It's goal would be to "establish a new standard for human development."

Five years into the future, the new Republic would likely be the richest nation in the world. It would largely resemble Texas, with strong, self reliant people who would be best educated on the planet.

The "neighbor to the north and west," Obama's America,  would mirror Greece. 






     

Election Outcome Could Spawn Surprising End Result

Republicans and the majority of Independents are anticipating a Romney victory Tuesday night. Defiant Obama supporters and a partisan mainstream media are saying, "not so fast!" So, what if they prove to be correct?

Every conservative in America dreads the thought of another term for Barack Obama. As Newt Gingrich put it, "a win for Obama would vindicate the president, freeing him to fully implement his agenda." This indeed would change America forever.

To many, this wouldn't be altogether bad! The promise of "social justice" resonates with a large part of the population. Unfortunately, history has proven that such a methodology is "fools gold." Class warfare has always been the primary Marxist catalyst. It sounds comfortable and reassuring, even fair and just. Yet, beneath the fleece are the steel prongs of a declining standard of living. For everybody!

Bill Clinton has barnstormed the country, spewing his "globalist, poor white trash" rationale on "why" the president should be given another term. President Clinton can be reassuring. His warmth and overly simplified message is reminiscent of Will Rogers. Behind it, however, is the "same old, same old." Fifty years from now, Bill Clinton will be remembered as a "mediocre to poor president, saved only by his willingness to compromise with a Republican Congress and Senate." Today, unfortunately, people tend to be swayed by him! How much? We'll find out Tuesday night!

The voter fraud question is already coming into play. Now they are talking about the voting machines and the question of "correct calibration." If we have a close election as so many are predicting, it could be cause of actions not totally unexpected. As in, confrontation. No matter the outcome, one side will be unhappy.

This election has exposed the growing divide in America. It didn't happen overnight. Any other nation in the world might have experienced a revolution in 2000. 2004 was close. 2008 was not. 2012 is different. The winning candidate in 2008 is seeking re-election. Most Americans have concluded that Barack Obama has proven to be "left" of the moderate that he represented. The question that remains: "Was the true Obama so far to the left that he lost too much of the middle to hold on to the White House?"

It would seem that these moderates hold the keys to the presidency. Pundits recognized them early, stating that Mitt Romney would especially appeal to those "mushy Republicans, leaning Independent," who resided in the suburbs of Detroit and Philadelphia. Experts suggest that they are in play. Hence, the last minute TV buys in those markets.

This would be a notable ending to perhaps the most vicious political campaign in history. "The Republicans resisted pressure from their own party conservatives and nominated a moderate. The Democrat incumbent refused to move to the center, after originally positioning himself as just that: a centrist."

With the writing clearly beginning to show on the wall, there is one last question: "Can the loser gracefully, graciously accept defeat?" My guess is, "probably not!"

Voter fraud is already on the tips on many tongues. If it comes down to two or three contested states, look out! Conservatives in energy states are becoming comfortable with the thought of a peaceful separation of the states. In fact, the more they think about it, the better it looks!

Hurricane Sandy briefly returned geographical awareness to much of the nation. We tend to forget how much of our population is pressed in the Northeast corner of America. We also are reminded how many states are represented here. Some have large populations. Most have small populations and minimal resources.  All have two U.S. Senators.

When America is divided by energy states and non energy states, we get a different map. It's surprisingly consistent with an agricultural and non-agricultural map. These two maps pressed together creates a valid question: "What would American look like, without our non-energy, non-agricultural members?

We should now turn to both an electoral map and a House and Senate map. Get the picture!

Preserving freedom is a never ending endeavor. The vision imposed by Barack Obama is scaring a lot of Americans. It's growth of government without end. Our debt continues to spiral out of sight. There are calls for the United Nations to become more involved in Americas' affairs. And, when looking at the presidents power base, our attention immediately turns to those same, non-energy, non-agricultural states.

Without them, the balance of power drastically shifts. To make matters even more interesting, a large portion of the nation's debt is held in these states. Like Hurricane Sandy, it has the makings of a perfect storm!




   

 

"E" Amendment would Showcase Vitter's Proposal

The amendment process does not require participation from the president. Therefore, when discussing passage of an amendment to the constitution, it merely needs to go through House and Senate. The difficult part is gaining ratification from 37 of the 50 states.

The "American English Unification Amendment" as outlined in "E" is for English would appear to have sufficient support for consideration.

87% of America favors English as the official language. 71% of the nation favors voter I.D. cards that would include the actual picture of the person who's name appeared on the card. These are two of the highlights of the "American English Unification Amendment" AKA the "E" Amendment. But there is more.

Louisiana Senator, David Vitter proposed changing Congressional representation to "citizen based" from "person based." The constitution defines "persons" and not "citizens." Vitter objects on the grounds that "citizens only" should be the benchmark for determining representation. His argument is not without merit.

Shouldn't representation be based on actual citizens? Most Americans are not aware that "persons" are the basis of determining how many Congressmen states are allotted. It has always been population based. True, these non-citizen persons are not allowed to vote. But they are included when tabulating the number of Congressional seats each state may hold.

Specifically, if Vitter's proposal were adopted, California would lose five seats, New York would lose two and Illinois would lose one seat. Gaining states would be Oregon, Nebraska, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Texas and either Montana, Tennessee or Florida. Senate Democrats who opposed Vitter's idea pointed out correctly that all eight seats that would be transferred are currently occupied by Democrats.

Vitter's plan is included intact in the "E" Amendment.

There is no way to know exactly where those new districts would fall. But when looking at the gaining states, chances are, they would ultimately end up in Republican hands. Was this Vitter's ultimate goal?

Probably not! The question becomes, "should we allow only citizens to influence our legislative decisions? You would think so! If it were otherwise, wouldn't we allow non-citizens to vote? Republicans are quick to accuse Democrats of fast track amnesty, just in time for elections. Perhaps they have a point!

The "E" Amendment jumps into the thick of Vitter's argument. Not only does it propose picture I.D. cards as necessities for voting, but it also clearly affirms the Senator's position. House seat allocation will be based on citizens, not persons.

Vitter's idea would become in full focus when the proposed amendment went back to the states. It is expected that California and New York would oppose the amendment. But they are only two states. North Dakota and Alaska would have equal say. Both would be certain to ratify the "E" Amendment.

There are other provisions included in this proposed legislation. With Republicans winning more governorships, the chances of ratification grow with each passing day. A House and Senate majority could be a reality after the election.

It is clearly time to begin discussing the 'E" Amendment.

Obama, Romney and "English as the Official Language." Where both candidates would stand and why

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.  

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!



 

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. 

"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.