I blame Congress as much, if not more, than Obama. Obama is a symptom of the crisis, Congress' failure to protect their exclusive legislative powers and their inability to manage the value of money IS the crisis.
In any event, because something has to change, it will. A cursory acquaintance with history suggests a Sulla, or a Cromwell. We were very lucky with GEN Washington.
Gestures of rebellion with the US Armed Forces on the other side, while gallant, are futile. As pointed out by ouchthatonehurt, there is a lot of political work to be done before the inflection point.
There must be a disloyal political movement. By disloyal, I mean a political movement that renounces the legitimacy of Congress' acts of pretended legislation and that denies their right to rule. This movement must not be armed - that's ANOTHER movement's job. Members of our movement elected to Congress will refuse to take their seats, but they will not face arrest.
As the rightness of the movement becomes better known, the righteousness of armed resistance will be understood by more than could understand it today.
The goal is to expel the corrupt occupation regime and to replace it with a legal, constitutional government. People who think that can be accomplished by patriot rifle squads fighting the US Army and Marine Corps are not engaged with reality.
If the “disloyal movement” is a political party, which I think you are suggesting it is, there would be a period of Democrat dominance (even more than now) while the Republican party would split, which would no doubt accelerate the process of tyranny. This could be where that “another movement” becomes active for the purpose of preserving liberties locally. The Federal government’s (over)response would no doubt accelerate the reception of the disloyal party. In this scenario, a George Washington type figure would be essential.
All hypothetical of course, but fascinating.
“There must be a disloyal political movement. By disloyal, I mean a political movement that renounces the legitimacy of Congress’ acts of pretended legislation and that denies their right to rule.”
Jim, that “political movement” is already a-sproutin’.
Witness the number of sherriffs who have made public pledges to refuse compliance with anti-Constituional laws to seize firearms.
Witness the number of states that have enacted legislation to protect their residents from ObamaCare.
We’re already seeing exactly what you’re describing, if on a nascent level.
I confess that I’m not boned up on The Constitution quite enough to be sure, but doesn’t it proscribe agreements made between the states, apart from Congress?
If so, the red states have to take care how they organize amongst themselves. Open agreements may be prohibited (at least if the red states expect to maintain the argument that they are acting to preserve the Constitution, not subvert it), but other types of cooperation are possible. I’m thinking of a “conference of conservative states” — a get-together by delegates from each state, not for the purpose of forming an explicit agreement between them, but rather to agree on a set of conservative principles and guidlines under which each state (for the time being) will plan a course of action on its own.
By such agreements in principle (as distinguished from agreements of signed papers), the red states can chart a “congruent course” towards the future, so to speak.
The goal is to have the red states as close to a “meeting of the minds and philosophies” as possible, so that when the federal collapse happens, the red states might be in a position to then coalesce and break off on their own.
I’ve used the following analogy before, but it’s worth repeating.
Think of the Titanic disaster. After strking the iceberg, the ship sank bow first, pulling the stern upward and into the air. This continued until the bow dropped so low (and the stern rose so high) that the superstructure could no longer bear the stress, and the ship literally tore itself apart below the water line (I recall Walter Lord in his book “A Night To Remember” writing of a “great noise” that everyone heard — it was only later when the wreckage was actually discovered by Robert Ballard that it was confirmed the ship in fact broke apart).
The bow sank rapidly towards the bottom. The stern settled back, then it, too, slipped under.
But — what if the watertight bulkhead in the stern had been high enough and strong enough so when the split occurred, the stern could float on its own?
This is how the red states must act. They must carefully act together to “build the bulkhead” that will give them buoyancy to survive as the federal government and the blue states that depend upon it founder and dive downward.
We must also realize that the result of such events is that after the collapse the United States will be no more, and that something else will replace it — perhaps two “nations”, perhaps more than two. It may be the only way.
It can be done.
We are seeing the beginnings of that today...
It might turn out to be more than "rifle squads" fighting. You do remember how the backward Vietnamese and Afghans fought us...and won. Guerrilla warfare can be highly effective.
Remember also how the IRA, practicing this approach in northern Ireland, made life miserable for the British armed forces.
"Futile"? Hardly, my friend.
If only one in ten US gun owning citizens chose to exercise their 2nd Amendment prerogative to directly confront the tyrannical usurpers in our government, they would comprise an army roughly 10 million strong.
On the other hand, the combined uniformed personnel of the US armed forces numbers about 1.5 million. If they were given orders to suppress the American people through force of arms, about two thirds would refuse that order, and would very likely go to war against the other third who chose to violate their oaths to the Constitution.
An order to the military to impose martial law upon the civilian population would only result in the arrest, detention, and possible execution of many thousands of uniformed military personnel (who chose to obey), and the commanders and politicians who forwarded that treasonous order down the command channels.
The 10 million strong patriot militia would never have to fire a single shot to achieve their aims.
In the unlikely event the patriot militia made the first move, the same dynamics would be in play. US military and security personnel would be forced to make a choice -- to defend the immoral and treasonous regime and make war against their own brethren, or follow their hearts and basic loyalty to their people and the Constitution. Again - the same scenario would be forced into play within the military establishment, with the exact same result.
Let us also remember that the entire US military was engaged in Iraq for nearly ten years by a force of insurgent jihadists who never numbered more than perhaps fifteen thousand at best. You tell me how the military would successfully engage millions of their own people on their home ground.
I tell you now....it will never come to pass. If the people stand up and force the issue, the government will stand down. They will not, and cannot defy us.
I disagree to a point.
You had Congress abdicating their duties (see the alphabet agencies), money (Fed) with nary a word from The People.
You had the Courts rubber stamping the edicts from the same hands that feed them [one of the worst ‘overlooked’ deficiencies in the Constitution, IMHO], ‘threatened’ with packing by past administrations and, still, NO oversight from Congress; let alone usurping as the ‘final word’ on the Constitution (sorry, that belongs to We, the People).
Again, I lay quite a bit of it all on the People/States who allowed it all to go down. Where were the fights, mobs and/or court cases when the WoD/WoPoverty were started? The alphabet agencies? First gun ban?
No, those in D.C. should have been run out of town when they tried to lay a finger upon ANY of those (and more) Rights.