Posted on 04/28/2010 11:15:45 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Columnist, Alan Caruba, wrote a recent article entitled, "A Whiff of Revolution," in which he generally describes the people of the United States as being fed up and disgusted with federal politics.[1] Caruba rightly compares the actions by the federal government (particularly under Obama) to the actions by Great Britain just before the America Revolution, stating that "[i]t is the antithesis of a nation of laws, a republic." Caruba predicts that Americans will eventually take this matter of freedom back into their own hands once again:
"If, between now and the midterm elections, the President and Congress pass the Cap-and-Trade Act and an amnesty for illegal aliens, I SUSPECT THAT SOME AMERICANS MAY NOT BE CONTENT TO SIT BY WHILE STATES AND THE COURTS WORK THEIR WAY WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION. They will sense-and rightfully so-a despotism never before associated with the presidency." (emphasis added)
Caruba makes some valid points in his article and accurately describes a feeling of revolution prevalent throughout the country. However, I believe that a more thoughtful analysis must be attributed to what a real and successful revolution will compose.
First, I must observe what I believe to be an underlying presumption in Caruba's prediction of a revolution by the PEOPLE THROUGHOUT (all of) THE UNITED STATES. I have to assume Caruba's prediction of revolution takes place on a nation-wide scale (in all fifty states) because he references "Americans" in general and simply leaves out the notion of "citizens of individual States." To me, Caruba portrays a revolution where by the union of fifty states stays intact.
Caruba seems to indicate that if Obama signs into law certain bills (i.e. amnesty, Cap-and-Trade, etc.-a sort of "crossing the line" point) then the people will instinctively or cognizantly recognize they are under despotism and will respond accordingly, even without consideration of their State government. I do not share this belief. Rather, I believe freedom's revolution will comprise of certain regions of the country under the leadership of certain states.
That the people (in whatever percentage is necessary to effectuate principles of freedom) in all fifty states will recognize that they are under despotism is simply not true. Just take a look at the last election and see who voted for the Obama-millions! Count these people out of any revolution movement against a system that they not only support, but love.
On top of that, many millions of these people receive direct benefits from the federal government and the system it has created: military, education, financial institutions, employment, welfare, grants, contracts, etc. With this direct interest, a large number of Americans will not participate in a revolution whatsoever. Thomas Paine recognized the same during 1776 as to the types of people who remained loyal to Great Britain:
"INTERESTED MEN, who are not to be trusted; WEAK MEN who cannot see; PREJUDICED MEN who will not see; and a certain set of MODERATE MEN, who think better of the European world than it deserves...[The moderate men] will be the cause of more calamities to this continent than all the other three."[2] (all-caps emphasis added)
Those classes of people exist today in large part, and we see its effect today. Immediately in observation, we evidently find that a large number of coastal-west, mid-north and north-east states will not participate in freedom's revolution, because they will not consider themselves to be under any sort of tyranny or despotism. They prefer (whether knowingly or not) socialism, big government, elimination of state powers, status quo, etc. These states would likely even preclude the possibility of a constitutional amendment some are advocating to "roll back" the federal government.
Even among the "Tea Party" movement, the idea of revolution is not altogether shared. Many of them simply believe that we should "vote the bums out" or should use the (federal) court system to "regain freedom." This mentality shows that they are federal-government-risk averse, likely and largely because they either believe that the federal government is "too strong" to resist (they say, "look at the Civil War: the federal government will crush our attempts to secede or resist them!"); that the federal laws are in fact supreme over state laws and thus, we must change the federal government to restore freedom; or that the union must be saved at all costs and so any State that resists and acts individually upon its own sovereignty is foolish.
People who believe that freedom must be obtained through the federal system causing their demise either will not likely consider themselves to live in despotism and revolt accordingly, or will not consider resisting the federal government individually or with a "mob of seditionists."
I believe Caruba's prediction involves a critical oversight regarding the state governments' role in the revolution through its independent political power. One of the reasons that the founding generation insisted that the States retain their borders, integrity and a large portion of their sovereignty was to be able to resist federal encroachment and to govern themselves-even without the federal government.
Human observation, experience and nature confirmed the need for a Constitutional Confederated Republic to maintain smaller and more numerous and individual territories to most effectively secure freedom for each body-politic. Each state served as an entity unto itself to accomplish the ends of government.
So, what if a group of people live in a state where they have to contend not only with the federal government but also with their state government? What will those people do who live in a state where its state government assists the federal government in rounding up all those who have "revolted" against the federal government? In such a State, what you mostly have are a bunch of so-called seditionists who (to that State and the federal government) have created an insurrection, rebellion or unlawful overthrow of government and who now have no support from any internal government entity with the organization, force and rule of law for its citizenry, police and state guard/militia. For those people, mere survival would be the focus, not freedom.
Even if a state possesses people who understand they are living in despotism, they will likely be so overwhelmed and overcome by the state and federal government-not to mention the other people who view them as "terrorists"-that they will not be able to do what Caruba suggests: that is, forget their state government and go forth with revolution.
Compare that scenario with people who live in a state where the state government not only supports the revolution but also participates in and leads it. Caruba seems to suggest that there will come a time (in the near future) where the court systems will not be the way to go, and that the States will be wasting their time by using the court system as a tool of resisting tyranny. He is correct. I believe we are essentially at that point already. Something more is needed to protect freedom. Are all of the states doing that "something more"? Absolutely not.
A good indicator of which state governments will or may participate in the revolution is to observe which states are proactively resisting the federal government now through their own independent political process. Consider what some of the states are proactively doing to resist federal encroachment. Consider the very character, nature and mentality of the state government systems currently in place to get a better feel for which state governments will remain Tories and which ones Revolutionaries.
Arizona: passed a bill declaring that Obama must prove that he is constitutionally eligible to be President before Arizona will put him on the ballot in 2012;[3] signed into law its illegal immigration bill, which provides for the internal protection and integrity of its borders, culture, way of life and rule of law by enforcing state laws against illegal immigration.[4] Certainly, Oklahoma and Texas should follow course.
Montana: led the way by signing into law the Firearms Freedom Act, which expressly exempts certain gun manufacturing and purchasing within the state from federal regulations.[5] The states that have followed: Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, Arizona, and Tennessee.
Idaho: expressly exempted its citizens from having to comply with the federal health care law under protection and sanction of state law.[6] Virginia and Utah also signed into law this same resistance to the federal health care law. Other states are working on it.
Oklahoma: among other federal-resistance laws introduced and passed, to introduce a bill to create a State Militia for the expressed purpose of resisting the federal government and "securing a Free State."[7]
Alaska: passed a law denouncing and resisting the National ID Act which requires every person in the United States to possess a federal identification for social and governmental purposes. Alaska is joined by other states such as Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, etc.[8]
One need not be a political scientist, sociologists or philosopher to understand that the spirit of revolution is not a national matter, but is a state matter; that the spirit of revolution is not prevalent in every state, but only some states; and that it will not likely be successful in every state without the support of that state government. It is for this reason (in part) that would-be tyrants and are-tyrants hate the division of power, the independent and separate sovereignty of states and decentralization. It is for this reason that we should love it.
If this upcoming revolution is just a bunch of individuals chaotically doing who knows what, under the command of God knows who, having to fight state and federal tyrants as well as neighbors, then the centralists/nationalists/globalists have accomplished what they have attempted to accomplish since the tower of Babel by stripping away from the independent and several bodies-politic the power and means by which they secure their own freedom, liberty and rights.
However, I do not believe that is an accurate description of what the upcoming revolution will be. Freedom's revolution will consist of individual states that understand what freedom and self-government are and what it means to protect that foundation.
I too smell the whiff of revolution, but the smell leads me on the trail of certain states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Alan Caruba, A Whiff of Revolution, Canada Free Press, (April 26, 2010), found at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/22454
[2] Thomas Paine, Common Sense, Ed. Mark Phillip, (Oxford, NY, Oxford University Press, 1995) 25.
[3] Daniel Tencer, Arizona 'birther' bill forces Obama to show birth certificate, The Raw Story (April 20, 2010) found at http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0420/arizona-bill-force-obama-show-birth-certificate/
[4] Randal C. Archibold, Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration, New York Times (April 23, 2010) found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html
[5] http://firearmsfreedomact.com/
[6] Alex Newman, States, Legislators, and Citizens Resist 'ObamaCare', The New American (March 22, 2010) found at http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/3176-states-legislators-and-citizens-resist-obamacare
[7] Bill Waugh, Some Oklahomans want a state militia to resist Washington, ONDeadline, (April 12, 2010) found at http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/04/some-oklahomans-want-a-state-militia-to-resist-washington-/1
[8] Real ID Nullification Legislation, http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/nullification/real-id/
http://libertydefenseleague.com/tag/revolution/
If a large number answer "NO" then the revolution will occur in those states too, only it will be far uglier, as it will entail ethnic cleansing.
This is from the blog "All Other Persons".
TABLE 1: White Vote for Obama Outside the South
State Obama Share White Vote % State Winner
NON-SOUTH 49.7 Alaska 32 McCain
Arizona 40 McCain
California 52 Obama
Colorado 55 Obama
Connecticut 51 Obama
D.C. 86 Obama
Delaware 53 Obama
Hawaii 70 Obama
Idaho 33 McCain
Illinois 51 Obama
Indiana 45 Obama
Iowa 51 Obama
Kansas 40 McCain
Maine 58 Obama
Maryland 49 Obama
Massachusetts 57 Obama
Michigan 51 Obama
Minnesota 53 Obama
Missouri 42 McCain
Montana 45 McCain
Nebraska 39 McCain
Nevada 45 Obama
New Hampshire 54 Obama
New Jersey 49 Obama
New Mexico 42 Obama
New York 52 Obama
North Dakota 42 McCain
Ohio 46 Obama
Oregon 60 Obama
Pennsylvania 48 Obama
Rhode Island 58 Obama
South Dakota 41 McCain
Utah 31 McCain
Vermont 68 Obama
Washington 59 Obama
West Virginia 41 McCain
Wisconsin 54 Obama
Wyoming 32 McCain
TABLE 2: White Vote for Obama in the South
State Obama Share White Vote % State Winner
SOUTH 30.2
Alabama 10 McCain
Arkansas 30 McCain
Florida 42 Obama
Georgia 23 McCain
Kentucky 36 McCain
Louisiana 14 McCain
Mississippi 11 McCain
North Carolina 35 Obama
Oklahoma 29 McCain
South Carolina 26 McCain
Tennessee 34 McCain
Texas 26 McCain
Virginia 39 Obama
The states where a majority of Whites voted for McCain and McCain won are those mostly likely to fit the authors criteria for being in Rebellion eventually. The states where a majority of Whites voted for Obama and Obama won are those most like to be happy with the path the USA is on.
The states where a majority of whites (who are the majority of every state) voted for McCain but Obama won are those most likely to suffer internal conflict.
I would consider Florida, Virginia and New Mexico to be the most divided states and likely to suffer internal conflict and possible county-by-county secession in the event of a USSR dissolution type event in the USA.
The chart above shows the case of Southern Secession pretty clearly.
The bolded states are the states where a large hostile minority is working against the interests of the majority group (in conjunction with white libs) to pervert the government of the state towards leftism. This same leftism once imposed delivers many benefits to the hostile minority.
This is straight out of Chittem 101. Situations like this are unnatural. Often to minorities in such cases are already conveniently self-segregated into a specific city, inner city, or region of the state.
To believe that a majority of of the majority will allow them selves to be dispossessed of their state by a hostile block-voting minority is to ignore history. Many people are already aware of these demographic issues.
The states where a majority of Whites voted for McCain and McCain won are those mostly likely to fit the authors criteria for being in Rebellion eventually. The states where a majority of Whites voted for Obama and Obama won are those most like to be happy with the path the USA is on.
The states where a majority of whites (who are the majority of every state) voter for McCain but Obama won are those most likely to suffer internal conflict.
A most informative post. I agree with everything you said.
Thank you.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/2215120,CST-NWS-gun29.article#
Illinois Legislature backs Chicago Mayor Daley’s effort to crack down on gun violence
April 29, 2010
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Unlawful use of gun with no FOID would require prison time
“We don’t realize the devastation. Every time someone carries a loaded weapon, they’re gonna use it sometime. And they’re gonna use it on an innocent person,” Daley said.
““We don’t realize the devastation. Every time someone carries a loaded weapon, they’re gonna use it sometime. And they’re gonna use it on an innocent person,” Daley said.”
I have carried for 6 years, and never used it.
Of course, if Daley lived next door.............. ;-)
>When do we say, “That’s it!”?
Two of my ‘hard-lines’ are: gun-registry/-control/-confiscation and amnesty.
>I am an Arizonan now. Arizona and Texas would be allies for sure!
If New Mexico were to be in that group it would be a nice geographic block. The problem with New Mexico [and I say this as a citizen of the state] is the same as the federal government: Contradictions in law [mainly between the superior Constitution and the lesser ‘statute’ laws] are exploited such that the government can put pressure on anyone regardless of their honest-guilt/-innocence because they can contend that “they broke the law.”
{As Ayn Rand wrote: There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.}
Let me give you a perfect example.
The New Mexico State Constitution says, in Section 6 of Article II:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet there exists several state statutes that DO abridge the right to keep and bear arms for defense; most especially 30-7-2.4, which you can read here: http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=66b036fd.eebbfe6.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2730-7-2.4%27%5D
As you can plainly see, this law flat-out contradicts the superior State Constitution. If I were to go on campus using my right to open carry, how much would you bet that I would be arrested for violation of that statute? Prosecuted? And, here’s the ‘biggy’, would it be winnable in a state’s court of law?
I’m actually tempted to try it; I will, of course, be in the right, legally speaking. There is NO ambiguity in the State Constitution regarding the matter.
Gun Confiscation seems inadequate. The entire country could be in ruins, but if you still have your guns it's ok?
It's a good question. I don't have a good answer.
>what is your line in the sand Almost deserves its own thread..
Indeed, I may write up an article and post it.
>Gun Confiscation seems inadequate. The entire country could be in ruins, but if you still have your guns it’s ok?
Well, first off, if you have a gun [and ammo] you can more easily defend yourself; also it may come in handy for hunting. Second, I only said that they were two of my hard-lines... not that they were my only two hard-lines.
>It’s a good question. I don’t have a good answer.
Maybe that’s what all the “line in the sand” posts are... people trying to figure out the answer to where their lines should be... or it could be that they’re “all talk and no substance.”
Something like what you're describing has already been done. It's an exhaustive, and comprehensive study of the levels of freedom in the 50 states, in a host of categories. It gives individual states' ratings in each of these categories, and an overall freedom rating.
It's called Freedom In The 50 States: An index of personal and economic freedom. It was authored by William Ruger and Jason Sorens of the Mercatus Center of George Mason University.
Hi Windflier -
Thanks for this. I really didn’t want to do all that work!
From the resource you provided, here are best and worst:
Most Freedom: TX, AZ, CO, ID, ND, SD, MO, TN, VA, NH
Least Freedom: CA, WA, IL, MA, NY, CT, RI, DC, MD, HA
Ten of each.
Same here, except I moved the wife and kids to Texas in December of '05. The handwriting on the wall, and the accumulating signs of decay became too much to ignore any longer.
Mark for later.
If you look at the presidential election results state by state, the results do not entirely equate with the freedom study.
Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire were not keeping their love of freedom in mind when they voted.
They don't even know what I mean by that, such is the extent of their Kool-aid drinkin'.
You've just described my precise observations about Texas, and why I decided to raise my four kids here, instead of California, where they were born.
You also hit the nail square on the head about how the folks back home feel about it. They honestly do not get it, because their liberal programming and indoctrination is so complete.
As far as they're concerned, I uprooted my kids from paradise and moved them to a less-than-desirable place. I was just back there, and spent considerable time trying to explain it all to them, but I still don't think they got it.
By the way big numbers are not necessary to effectuate a revolution: The American Revolution was effectuated with 5-10% of the Free population; Thomas Carlyle reported that only about 250,000 Frenchmen effectuated that countries change; Lenin had only about 250,000 out of a population of 100,000,000.
Soon as I saw your post, I thought of this study. It gets posted from time to time on the forum. It's been updated recently, so now's probably a good time to post it again.
Especially in light of the current tensions.
Most Freedom: TX, AZ, CO, ID, ND, SD, MO, TN, VA, NH
Least Freedom: CA, WA, IL, MA, NY, CT, RI, DC, MD, HA
I'll bet that break-down exactly matches the current US migration pattern.
When we were moving from California to Texas in late 2005, the rental rates for U-Haul equipment from Cali to Texas was something like four times as expensive as rental rates for the same equipment going in the opposite direction.
U-Haul didn't artificially raise the rates on the Cali end. They discounted the rates on the Texas end. My wife did some checking at the time and discovered that they were even offering to pay people to get their equipment back to Cali, under certain circumstances.
Consider this: Texas has a net in-migration of 1,350 US citizens a DAY, while Cali is undergoing an annual net loss of US citizens. The only thing that's keeping their population number steady is the influx of foreigners and revolving door Americans.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.