Republicans Begin Laying Ground Work to Walk Away From Obamacare Opposition

KC_Lion, this isn’t just to you. I made a few responses and you guys can tee of on them if you like.

Okay. Then don’t you think that deflates the idea that withholding our votes from these despicable men will turn the GOPe back to us?

This leaves me in a quandary here, because I’ll be honest, I don’t see rescue from any active party at this time.

Something new is going to have to come along, and it’s going to have to catch on like wildfire across the spectrum, or we’re done for.

I greatly enjoy all your posts here, and I learn a lot from them. Thank you for the comments, and I apprecaite them. I would still urge you to be careful about buying in to the things I say. Make sure they make sense to you, and stick fairly close to the facts. I still reserve the right to screw up from time to time. :^)

A trucon could get 40%, perhaps a bit more. But if the trucon were the Republican nominee, there would be massive defections as the GOPe swung to the Democrat. They will not vote for one of ours under any circumstances. So. Getting from 40 to 50.1 is going to be very, very difficult from the GOP frame, because the enemy can gel a coalition of communists, mushy heads, and GOPe to get to 50.1 Why not make THEM split the 60% “not conservative” vote?

You're playing off the old convential 40/40/20 rule that stood the test of time. Today I'm not so sure. We get gamed so much by the media that I'm not convinced it does or it doesn't still play. Elections are still reasonably close. If you toss in the folks who sit out, perhaps it is still 40/40/20.

I do agree it's hard to move that 40% to 50.1. I think it's best to ask the question here. Why is it hard to move the 40 to50.1%? Take a look at Bush I, Dole, Bush II, Bush II, McCAin, and Romney. Does that give you cause for concern? Of course it does. You know what told me we were in serious trouble, and what the reason was? When Bush II couldn't win big over the likes of Gore and Kerry, I realized we were not offering enough of a contrast. We were asking our nation's voters to pick between gray and darker gray. We weren't asking them to choose between an off white and a darker gray.

So what happens. We have people who are concerned about spending, and they get angry and won't pull the lever for Bush II. We have people who are concerned about our borders and the tens of millions of illegals, and they get angry and won't pull the lever for Bush II. No Child Left Behind, delcaring the U. S. preparedness to be one of a "One Theater" preparednes, and more people sit out. Close more military bases, more folks sit out. Stand by and watch our nation melt down monetarily, more folks sit out.

The GOPe observes all this and comes away with the idea that we're just too damned Conservative to win elections.

Those that sit out take a look at it and do antoher ten face palms in one evening.

The Left looks at it and cheers.

And so it goes...

This can only work if there are BOTH a Democrat, a GOPe candidate, AND a real conservative. In a 3-way race, 40% wins more often than not. Ross Perot, even in his day, proved this can be done. It doesn't take 40% either. It takes about 34-36% in a squeaker. I make no value judgment about Perot in this. Fact is, he was reaching rarified air before he droped out. Could it be done again? Wow, the media would just melt down over it. So would the GOPe, the Democrats, the U.N. the foreign press...

Am I against a try? I neither back it or trash it. It would have to be spontanious, and it would have to light up like a prarie fire. At the same time, there would need to be a sea change in Congress as well. An elected Conservative must have a body of people to work with in the Senate and the House. We would like to think the Republicans would work with him, but I've lost so much respect for the Republican Party, I'd expect to see it go rogue. If it did, it would have less than 100 House members in six years.

The “capture the GOP” people assume that, in primaries, if WE win that THEY will vote for us. I do not believe this to be true. I don't either. We've seen the newbies whiped in line so many times. I'm over that. Granted, we get a few new people like Cruz, but overall most of them turn out to be mushy marshmallow filling at the core.

That 40% conservative figure includes Democrats and independents. It’s not just Republicans. Within the Republican universe, there is either a bare majority or a large minority that would vote for HRC before they would vote for Cruz or Palin. I tend to think of such folks as a small number, but it only takes a small number to throw the election, or votes in the House and Senate. A presidential contender wins by 6%. To flip that it would take 3% + 1.

Cruz or Palin cannot win a two-way race, but in a three-way race they have a very strong chance. Don't sell the electorate short. I understand your take on it, and I don't think it's crazy talk by any means. Cruz or Palin could step up and make the types of sound-bytes that would destroy a guy like "The Wisest V.P. Ever", Joe Biden. Whoever our cadidate is in 2016, they need to be solid on every single issue. We cannot solidify the population base by adding in 30 million Mexican nationals. That is a deal breaker for me, and it should be for everyone. We need to campaign on cutting all benefits to foreign nationals, and watch them trot back home where they belong. And for every sob story told about an illegal family, we should show a citizen family who has been screwed severely by loss of job, loss of home, loss of future, and that's the future of their young children.

Conservatives need to break out the big guns in 2016. It's all out war folks. It's time we fielded a team that understands what America is all about, 1776 on.

Well, looks like the two of you agree that voting for Gov. Romney was the right thing to do.

I disagree, and I say that as someone who actually dragged his carcass in to vote for that incredibly flawed ticket. And in a so-called battleground state no less. I regret having done that, and I don’t plan to repeat the error of voting for a nonconservative. Indeed, I’m working hard on controlling my voting addiction as well, and hope to avoid the polls in the future.

The gop wing of the uniparty cares not one whit for conservatives and conservatism. And as we’ve seen recently with the former VP candidate, they don’t give a damn about retired veterans, either. It’s all about power and treasure for them. If anything, I’ve come to recognize that the gop wing of the uniparty is just a roach motel: conservatives and conservative ideas go in, and nothing of value comes out.

As for FR and how friendly it is to republicans, I think the intro to FR posted by the owner is pretty straightforward. What the boss does with regard to that is up to him. What has changed I think is the consensus amongst FReepers regarding the gop. When I first came to FR, suggesting that the gop wing of the uniparty was not very conservative was a radical if not heretical notion. I know, because I was one of the few people on FR who regularly pointed that out. Well, things change and what was once a radical concept is now generally accepted.

You’re of course free to provide whatever remarks you wish to regarding the gop. However the same is true for other FReepers. It’s ultimately up to the mods and the owner of FR to decide what will and will not be tolerated.

Okay. Then don’t you think that deflates the idea that withholding our votes from these despicable men will turn the GOPe back to us?

I probably didn't explain my theory clearly enough.

It's my thought that, had the conservative base thoroughly rejected the milquetoast candidates of decades past, that it might have persuaded the GOP to turn back toward their stated ideals, in that time.

After having seen that the vast majority of us are hopelessly 'on the reservation' these last few decades, they now have no inclination whatsoever to move the party back to the right. Four out of ten Republican voters could sit out another election, and I don't believe it would move the needle on their thinking at all.

I’ll be honest, I don’t see rescue from any active party at this time. Something new is going to have to come along, and it’s going to have to catch on like wildfire across the spectrum, or we’re done for.

I couldn't agree more. I've been saying here for some time, that the civil system of citizen participation in government has been subverted beyond all recognition, and that the visible game of politics is merely a charade to keep the people thinking that something resembling the Framers' government is still in place.

I no longer believe that it is.

I believe that we've finally reached a place where elections are little more than elaborate dog and pony shows, staged by the ruling elite to pacify the people and to manipulate the brokering of power. The so-called 'two party' system has become nothing more than a shabby apparency. In truth, there's only one party with two (supposedly) opposing wings. More and more, it's hard to see where there's anything but solid cooperation between the two - and that 'working across the aisle' tends to only benefit the elite - not the people.

Yes, we citizens (and our state legislatures) have to get a grip on what's really going on here, and come up with an effective method to get back in the game. I'm now past the point of believing that 'voting them out' is going to do anything to move the ball in the right direction.

Thomas Sowell said in a recent article, that there are only four possible choices for the American people at this time:

1. Accept the fundamental overthrow of the Constitution and the American Way.
2. Launch an all-out campaign of widespread civil disobedience or rebellion to force Washington to reform.
3. Secession by several red states from the union.
4. Trust that we can accomplish reform through the civil mechanisms laid down by the Framers.

Of the four, I only see numbers 2 and 3 as being probable, with number 3 being the most likely choice because it's a peaceful, purely political process.

Sowell admitted that he most desires the last choice among the four, and so do I, but I believe we've passed the point where that's even possible. Naturally, I believe that choice number 1 is unthinkable. I also believe that there's a significant percentage of Americans who will refuse to go down that path, which leaves us again with choices 2 and 3.

This is all very heavy to consider, but we must begin confronting what the current reality truly is. For much of my life, it never occurred to me that I would live through such an historic time of choosing, but here we are. I never wanted to be part of anything as disruptive as what we're fast approaching, but it appears I have no choice. Neither does any other American.

“And so if enough of you vote 3rd party or don’t vote at all, you will end up with a fascist/socialist government. I guess you must want that, because that is what the end result will be.”

And if I don’t vote for the gop wing of the uniparty all manner of evils will befall me including but not limited to:
-Fascism!
-Socialism!
-Communism!
-Bi-metalism!
-Plagues of boils!
-Showers of newts!
-ED!
-The heartbreak of psoriasis!

“Fascism!
-Socialism!
-Communism!”

Yes, you are already getting it, you just don’t seem to comprehend what is happening. Go to the thread “Dinesh D’Souza indicted for violating U.S. election law” just recently posted, and read it and the comments to see what is happening. This follows upon the subpoena of Christie, the IRS going after Tea Party members, the use of the legal system by the Obama Regime to work its will, using the Justice Dept. via Eric Holder to achieve their ends.

Holder’s going after states in Court regarding election laws; the Dems used the Courts to go after Palin, and also Walker in WI among others. And if the Courts don’t get you, the rules and regulations of the likes of the EPA and other corrupt federal depts will get you. Are you blind? Can you not see?

You are like the proverbial frog in the pot of warm water, where the heat keeps being jacked up without you bothering to figure it out until you are boiled alive. You’d better wake up, bro, or your days, as all of ours are, ... numbered. Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and others. Remember them? You think it can’t happen here? A fool is born every minute. Hope you have a good stockpile of ammunition. You could very well need it one day in the not that far future.

Okay. Then don’t you think that deflates the idea that withholding our votes from these despicable men will turn the GOPe back to us?

I probably didn't explain my theory clearly enough. It's my thought that, had the conservative base thoroughly rejected the milquetoast candidates of decades past, that it might have persuaded the GOP to turn back toward their stated ideals, in that time. After having seen that the vast majority of us are hopelessly 'on the reservation' these last few decades, they now have no inclination whatsoever to move the party back to the right. Four out of ten Republican voters could sit out another election, and I don't believe it would move the needle on their thinking at all. I agree. I do think you and I have a tendency to be too harsh on those who voted for the lesser of two evils in the past though. In hind sight it's pretty easy to see how mistaken some of us were. At the time voting for Bush I over Clinton was a no-brainer. Voting for Dole vs the corrupt Clintons and their Dixie Mafia connections was too, although it grated me something fierce to do it.

Looking back we can see how thing degraded, but Nixon was a no-brainer over McGovern. Ford was a no-brainter over Carter. In those days the differences weren't as pronounced on our side. These guys weren't one with us, but they weren't anywhere near as one with the Left as McCain and Romney are. In those days it was reasoned to think the next election we would have a better nominee and things would correct. Then we came to McCain and Romney, and it's impossible to deny how bad things have become. McCain and Romney could easily be running on Democrat tickets. If they were, McCain would certainly be a Leftist's Leftist, and Romeny wouldn't be much better. Was this the case coming up to 2008? I don't think so. As much as I rail on Bush II for blowing our biggest chance in 60 years, I don't consider him to be as bad as McCain and Romney.

The fact that he took a pass on fixing things, passed Medicare Part D, and worked to get amnesty, sure makes that a tough call though. And his spending, and allowing us to come to the 2008 situation, without taking action before hand..., sorry, the guy really F'd us over. He may not have been McCain and Romney, but he sure gave them a run for the money. Thinking of the melt-down alone, I could be wrong here. I think McCain and Romney would have handed us the same situation, so I consider them farther left. It's a real debate subject to be sure. I'm not convinced I'm right..

I’ll be honest, I don’t see rescue from any active party at this time. Something new is going to have to come along, and it’s going to have to catch on like wildfire across the spectrum, or we’re done for.

I couldn't agree more. I've been saying here for some time, that the civil system of citizen participation in government has been subverted beyond all recognition, and that the visible game of politics is merely a charade to keep the people thinking that something resembling the Framers' government is still in place.

I no longer believe that it is. Nor do I.. They count on new voters to replace us. Young kids trying to do the right thing before they fully grasp what's gong on, is the only thing that keeps the R party alive IMO.

I believe that we've finally reached a place where elections are little more than elaborate dog and pony shows, staged by the ruling elite to pacify the people and to manipulate the broke ring of power. The so-called 'two party' system has become nothing more than a shabby apparency. In truth, there's only one party with two (supposedly) opposing wings. More and more, it's hard to see where there's anything but solid cooperation between the two - and that 'working across the aisle' tends to only benefit the elite - not the people. I don't want to lower it to the elites. I understand where you're coming from, but the elites have something to lose here too. I guess it depends on your definition (or paramters if you will...) of elites though. If we're merely talking about corporations, and not the very very very elite, then I think it's a mistake to allow the Left to divide us. We need corporations to get the big things done. Our aircraft industry couldn't survive if there weren't large corporations able to make investments on the scale they need to, or take losses on the scale they need to to remain viable.

The Left would love to creat a us vs them thing with 'the people' coming out against any corporate environment. I think that would be a mistake to play into. Corporations are good, and they are bad. We have to find a way of weeding out the bad. We can't simply toss out the baby with with the wash-water.

Yes, we citizens (and our state legislatures) have to get a grip on what's really going on here, and come up with an effective method to get back in the game. I'm now past the point of believing that 'voting them out' is going to do anything to move the ball in the right direction. I can only state that state legislatures can be very problematic too. We could cut 75% of our state regulations and probably have a pretty good country. Say nullify anything passed after 1970 or something. LOL, but I think we'd be on to something pretty decent if we studied what we could do along these lines. These legislatures are in session too much of the time. Cut them down to 60 days per year and I think we'd be a lot better off also. These aren't origianal ideas. I think they deserve some thought.

Thomas Sowell said in a recent article, that there are only four possible choices for the American people at this time:

1. Accept the fundamental overthrow of the Constitution and the American Way. ABSOLUTELY NOT!

2. Launch an all-out campaign of widespread civil disobedience or rebellion to force Washington to reform. I don't think this is wise either. 20 million folks march on D. C. and demand change peacefully, yes. Civil disobedience can spiral things out of control, and with this government in it's present state, you don't want to give them any excuses. This is like us moving and say, "Check"..., and then they move and say, "Check Mate!".

3. Secession by several red states from the union. This is not going to happen peacefully. We would have a civil war in days, and with the weapons we have today, the death toll would make the fist Civil War look tame by comparison.

4. Trust that we can accomplish reform through the civil mechanisms laid down by the Framers. Who is selling Conservatism in this nation? The answer is NOBODY. It's why nobody is getting all the Conservative votes. Sell Conservatism on the street corner, and you'll sell sell sell. This is the answer. We want folks to buy Conservatism, but we don't advertist it, market it, create products to buy (candidates), or anything else that would make our nation head back to the right.

Of the four, I only see numbers 2 and 3 as being probable, with number 3 being the most likely choice because it's a peaceful, purely political process.

Sowell admitted that he most desires the last choice among the four, and so do I, but I believe we've passed the point where that's even possible. Naturally, I believe that choice number 1 is unthinkable. I also believe that there's a significant percentage of Americans who will refuse to go down that path, which leaves us again with choices 2 and 3. You see four as the best, but you think it is passed time. You know what, you take the most popular product in this nation right now, stop advertising, stop putting it on the shelves in our local markets, and don't make it available on the internet. Does it sell? That is what we have done with Conservatism. Yes, we hawk it here, but we're not the party. We're not a large enough endeavor to change 50 states. We hawk the truth, and hope folks tune in. It's the people in the parties that will make it happen, if it does happen..

This is all very heavy to consider, but we must begin confronting what the current reality truly is. For much of my life, it never occurred to me that I would live through such an historic time of choosing, but here we are. I never wanted to be part of anything as disruptive as what we're fast approaching, but it appears I have no choice. Neither does any other American. The only thing fast approaching is calamity, if we try options two and three. It wouldn't be several months before the absolute lunacy of two and three would become undeniable. And by then the ball would be rolling so far down the road, the fascists would mop up.

"3. Secession by several red states from the union."

This is not going to happen peacefully. We would have a civil war in days, and with the weapons we have today, the death toll would make the fist Civil War look tame by comparison.

Again, you and I disagree on this one point.

I won't belabor you (or anyone else) with the long dissertations I've previously written on this point, but suffice it to say that, no, there would be no launch of armed aggression from Washington if several red states peacefully opted out of the union. It simply isn't going to happen in this day and age.

Now, if the secessionist states allowed themselves to be goaded into some sort of attack on the old United States, then yes, there's a chance that one or more incidents could spiral out of control and prompt a military response from Washington. However, I believe the government (and the people) of the newly formed union would be far too savvy to allow such a thing to happen.

As far as selling conservatism to the masses, it's a great idea, but we've run out of time to slowly educate the rest of America. The country will be finished long before such an effort could make the difference. Understand that such an effort would be an uphill battle against the already deeply entrenched leftist forces in academia, the media, entertainment, and our government.

I'm not completely sour on the concept, though. Even now, I see conservatives making a dent in society's mass indoctrination, via the internet. I just think it's too little, too late, to save the country from real implosion.

If we're going to save what's left of the Framers' republic, we're going to have to consider taking some drastic measures that this generation of Americans never imagined they'd be faced with.

At this very moment, the people of the Ukraine are in open rebellion against their government, and are taking their country back state by state. They're filling the streets, the government offices, and the state legislative buildings. Even the police are siding with the people as this thing progresses. It's amazing to behold. They're doing the very thing that, by all rights, should be happening here. And I don't believe they're even armed.

I suppose my entire premise is that America is FUBAR, and all of the established systems put in place by our forebears, have been corrupted beyond redemption. That is what I've observed, so when I examine our problems and look for solutions, I naturally conclude that we must go far outside our long enduring comfort zone to fix our country.

When it dawns on you that the reason the United States held the power it did, is because we were a rather united nation with 300 million people in it, you’ll begin to see the problem of you turning it into a Conservative nation of 50 million. If the rest stay in the union, you’ll have a very very very Leftist nation with massive military might on your border. And I can’t believe you don’t see the problem with a Communist country on your doorstep, that out numbers you by 5 to 1.

You can go ahead and play at the idea this ends peacefully.

It won’t. And then what? Oops?

When it dawns on you that the reason the United States held the power it did, is because we were a rather united nation with 300 million people in it, you’ll begin to see the problem of you turning it into a Conservative nation of 50 million.

Gallup has been surveying the American public about their political leanings for over half a century. From what I've read, the numbers have hardly shifted during the whole time they've been asking that question.

The breakdown almost always works out as so:

Conservative 40%
Moderate 39%
Liberal 21%

With an ideological breakdown like that, you'd likely wind up with a fairly even population split between the old union and the new.

It's just not true that we conservatives are outnumbered by the horde. If it were, Obama would have won his first election in a landslide, after eight years of President Gore (who crushed that upstart Republican, George W Bush, like a bug in 2000).

If I had my druthers, we could (and would) fix the mess we're in, through our established civil processes - but watching the two parties over the last five years, I've concluded that a quiet coup of sorts has occurred, and that we're never going back to the way things were through the normal routes.

Decent folks like you and I will probably spend the next couple of years debating and reasoning our way through this dilemma. In the end, I think we're all going to conclude that the party's over, and that we're going to have to look to the Declaration for a remedy.

“Yes, you are already getting it, you just don’t seem to comprehend what is happening.”

Oh, I most definitely get it. We merely disagree on a solution.

If there is a solution to the cultural and political dilemma we find ourselves in, it certainly won’t be putting more effort and treasure into the gop wing of the uniparty.

“If there is a solution to the cultural and political dilemma we find ourselves in, it certainly won’t be putting more effort and treasure into the gop wing of the uniparty.”

Then you will be ruled by socialists, and that’s a fact.

“Then you will be ruled by socialists, and that’s a fact.”

Most likely. Only they won’t call themselves socialists. They’ll call themselves republicans and democrats.

When it dawns on you that the reason the United States held the power it did, is because we were a rather united nation with 300 million people in it, you’ll begin to see the problem of you turning it into a Conservative nation of 50 million.

Gallup has been surveying the American public about their political leanings for over half a century. From what I've read, the numbers have hardly shifted during the whole time they've been asking that question.

The breakdown almost always works out as so:

Conservative 40%
Moderate 39%
Liberal 21%

I agree, that's probably close to what Gallop came up with over the years. Traditionally political wonks have described it as 40 Conservative, 40 Liberal, and 20 Independent. When C-Span breaks out it's calls, it ranks them in three groups. Democrat, Republican, and Moderate (Indpendent). If you listen to the calls, you get nothing from them. Well, that's not exactly right, because you quickly catch on that about 80% of the Moderates are in lock step with the Leftist Democrat calls. 20% break for the Conservative side. The sad thing about the way they run the program, is that you can't gain a consensus about public opinion. The Democrat calls are followed by the Republican, and they the "Moderate". You don't get a breakdown of how many Democrat, Republican, or Moderate calls came in. They nullify any grasp of public opinion. They slant the responses toward the Left. Many of the moderates are simply Leftists too timid to admit what they truly are.

With an ideological breakdown like that, you'd likely wind up with a fairly even population split between the old union and the new.

Okay, lets say that's true. Then why are we willing to give up half the nation based on figures you readily agree are a near push?

It's just not true that we conservatives are outnumbered by the horde. If it were, Obama would have won his first election in a landslide, after eight years of President Gore (who crushed that upstart Republican, George W Bush, like a bug in 2000).

If I had my druthers, we could (and would) fix the mess we're in, through our established civil processes - but watching the two parties over the last five years, I've concluded that a quiet coup of sorts has occurred, and that we're never going back to the way things were through the normal routes.

I'm not sure why not, if you truly think the nation is about 50/50, Liberal vs Conservative.

Decent folks like you and I will probably spend the next couple of years debating and reasoning our way through this dilemma. In the end, I think we're all going to conclude that the party's over, and that we're going to have to look to the Declaration for a remedy.

Here's my problem with that. I think you're being too rosey regarding the break-away states. I think you get about 50 million people in break-away states. You think we get about 160 million. If you're right, you're willing to toss half the nation we reside in to the Leftists. Ouch! And based on what, a few percentage points? In my scenario, we're looking at about one in six U. S. Citizens winding up in the Conservative Union. This would leave roughly 270 million in the Leftist Union.

It's one thing to be unhappy. It's another to be so unhappy that you actually buy into dismantling the United States over it. Many Republicans would refuse to join in the Conservative break-away.

Whatever the break-down winds up being, to a varrying degree this is what you're left with.

50 to 125 million people standing up to the world's Leftists/Marxists/Communists/Islamic Terrorists.

You with up with no Pacific ports.

You wind up with no aircraft carriers.

You wind up with no Hawaii, as your Western defense.

You wind up with no satellite surveylance. The global GPS might be gamed to be non-accessable. Any space program left would be a part of the old United States.

You wind up with the allies you used to have, not being your allies any longer.

Any foreign military bases would not be accessable for our efforts.

Israel could be our ally, but with the nation we left being consolidated under the Leftist platform, we would be at extreme risk if we wanted to come to Israel's aid. And if wanted to come to Israel's aid, what would we do that with, since the military fleet would be loyal to the original U. S. It's not going to simply split things down the middle, and if people did try to break off assetts, I can assure you the military of the old U. S. would intervene.

You wind up without most of your traditional allies.

You wind up without a South Pacific partner. You have no European partners. You have no Asian partners. You are essentially isolated in your new republic with no global clout whatsoever.

You wind up with 50 to 125 million people, to rival China's 1.7 billion. And you'll rival China only with ground troops.

The traditional push-back that the United States provided for the last century would be gone.

You would have the United Nations trashing you for anything related to international borders.

You would have the other half of the United States opposing you at every move.

Everyone in your part of the United States would be considered a high level security risk. People from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a number of other Middle-Eastern and Asian nations would have an easier time traveling in the old U. S. than we would. Any realtives left behind, would be just that, left behind.

Take a good hard look at California. Is it better off today than it was 20 years ago? Has white flight cause the state to be in a better position? No. Instead California has gone very Left. There are still people out there that could be converted to Conservatism, but the lights are out in the halls and meeting rooms of the majority of Conservatives who used to be there.On the forum today I read the plans of people who wish to turn the majority of the United States into California. That plan worked so well, they want to implement it in at least half, and perhaps as much as 85% of the nation.

Folks, I beg of you to come to your senses.

We need to be devising plans to recover the West Coast. We do not need to be devising plans to give up a massive portion of the nation to the Leftists who would then be free to run the world as they saw fit.

Imagin this nation being run by the John Kerrys, the John McCains, the Barack Obamas, the George Soros, the Terressa Heinz Kerry's, the Black Panthers, the Louis Fahrakans, the Jessie Jacksons, the Shiela Jackson Lees, the Harry Reids, the Nancy Pelosis...

I have one word for folks who think this nation is bettered if only we surrender more soil to the Leftists.

California

why are we willing to give up half the nation based on figures you readily agree are a near push?

I'm not willingly giving up anything. In my opinion, it's already gone, and I didn't even get a say in the matter.

Like I said before, if I had my druthers, we'd reform our government through the civil systems the Framers put in place. I don't see that happening now, as the system has been subverted and perverted beyond redemption. It would take a revolution to change it back within our lifetimes.

Not likely.

I love my country, and don't want to see it divided, but the hard cold reality is that it's already divided. Divided to a degree where the two sides have reached a point of irreconcilable differences.

You think we should work harder to educate our fellows. So do I, but I don't see that as a viable solution to halt the rapidly crumbling relationship between the left and right in this country. We're simply out of time to raise the awareness level of the general public before events and massive internal pressures force some kind of showdown between the two sides.

Again - this isn't me making a choice, or advocating for a solution to what's coming. I'm simply stating what I feel is the likely course the conservative, patriotic side will take. We're going to pro-actively do something, or we'll allow events to take their inevitable course. I don't think any of us wants to live in the left's 'inevitable' USA, which is Sowell's path #1.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out in his brilliant essay, there are only four logical paths we can take. Perhaps I've underestimated the will of the American people, and they'll rise up and rebel against the wholesale, wanton destruction of this greatest of all countries. I would very much support a movement that was dedicated to marching on Washington in the tens of millions, and staying put until the feral government acquiesced to the people's demands to return this country to its constitutional moorings.

I'd also support a 10th Amendment revolt by the state legislatures, if they ever found the backbone to mount one. Same with an Article V convention of the states, or a nationwide tax revolt.

All of those fall under Sowell's path #2.

So far, I don't see enough steam gathering for any of these citizen movements, to think that any of them will materialize in time to make a difference. I believe that's because they all require causative action and mobilization on the part of the public, who appear to be more inclined to suffer the evils that beset us, than do something to reverse them.

In the end, I believe we'll only act when it appears we have no other choice - which isn't being active, but reactive. We're going to need to be pushed the very brink, and then which of Sowell's options will be left to us?

Just two:

3. Stand fast and trust that we can somehow make our will felt through the civil systems in place, even though all evidence suggests that they've been subverted beyond all recognition.
4. The secession of several red states to preserve what's left of the Framers' America.

Again, I'm not advocating for the dissolution of the United States as we've known it (except as a last resort). I'm also not advocating for violent revolution. I'm certainly not advocating for surrender to the subversive Communists forces that have undermined the Constitution and our fundamental institutions.

But I'm also beyond advocating for solutions which logic dictates will not work in the present stage of the crisis.

What I do advocate, is that we coolly assess where this battle is, and that we take the necessary steps to effectively advance our cause within the present situational dynamic. That means stepping outside our comfort zones and taking this movement to a whole new level.

I would posit that the vast majority of conservatives are far out of step with where the game is at present. They're pushing solutions that might have worked in years past, but the dynamics of the situation have utterly changed. Even some of our best thinkers are failing to wrap their wits around the present situation as it exists right NOW.

I apologize for not responding to every one of the very good points you brought up. The one I did respond to, is the key jumping off point to my fundamental take on the subject.

Thank you for the response. I read it all. I understand where you are coming from. I won’t respond to it since we’ve pretty much hashed out the points we wanted to make.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Take care.