Obama wins -- Heartland Republic secedes

Obama wins -- Heartland Republic secedes ____________________________________________________

November 5th, 2008. Democrats are still partying across America after their decisive electoral college win. John McCain, disoriented and trying to fight back tears, tells Wolf Blitzer in an interview, "I hope for calm in our great country, but the future is very unpredictable now." Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin returns to Alaska saying "the American way of life depends on freedom and not on big government."

During late November and December, rumours begin to surface that transition meetings between the Bush administration and the Obama inner circle are breaking down into the same acrimony that now grips the Congress, newly dominated by liberal Democrats. A leading conservative Republican congressman from Texas is reported to have said at a luncheon, "Obama has thirty days to prove he isn't a commie. If that doesn't happen, all bets are off."

January 20, 2009. President Obama gives a rousing inaugural address in which he says "every effort will be made to raise up the poor, to remove the stain of racial inequality from our national life, and to make American towns and cities safe again by addressing the problem of too many guns in the wrong hands." Former president Bush breaks with tradition and fails to attend the event, citing a heavy chest cold.

March, 2009. A meeting of legislators and state governors from a variety of central states, held at a remote casino resort in northern California, together with John McCain and Sarah Palin, is closed to reporters. Rumours begin to circulate that a secessionist movement is being discussed. President Obama states that "all necessary force" will be used to maintain "social peace" and "keep the Union strong." Governor Schwarzenegger tells reporters that he was invited to attend, but that he "respects the new president and his commitment to alternative energy development." However, he adds, "the growing demands for a second official language in my state and in Arizona and New Mexico could lead to other strains on the fabric of American society if not addressed creatively."

April, 2009. With the economic recession verging on depression, and the National Guard in the streets in various large cities across the nation, the Governor of Oklahoma announces that "plans are underway for a referendum in twenty-seven states, aimed at establishing the Heartland Republic of America, with its capital to be located here in Oklahoma City." He refuses to answer any further questions from reporters, but fires out the information that "President Obama should not assume that he has full control of the military in these states."

June, 2009. The referendum date is set for July 4th. All the states west of the Mississippi except Hawaii are included in the referendum by order of their state governors. Wisconsin, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina announce that they will allow participation. Rioting breaks out in Peoria, Indianaoplis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, and Charleston WV, and the U.S. army is mobilized in North Carolina and Virginia to quell expected clashes between "patriot militia" and "Heartland heroes" along mostly racial lines.

July 4, 2009. With heavy fighting raging around a number of mid-western cities, and the state national guards co-operating with elements of the national armed forces to keep a lid on potential riots in Los Angeles, Houston and Atlanta, a total of thirty-three states now sanction referendum sites and a large turnout of voters appear to cast their ballots. The results, announced at midnight, show that 78% of the votes cast endorse the Heartland Republic. A committee of high-ranking U.S. military leaders appears on CNN to verify that they have declared control of many elements of the U.S. armed forces and the NORAD headquarters in Colorado, and they warn President Obama not to interfere in their reorganization of the U.S. military.

July 5, 2009. Sarah Palin gives a speech in Oklahoma City declaring the Heartland Republic independent, and under martial law, with herself as the first president and a committee of forty "leading elected officials" to form a constitutional committee, while the Heartland Armed Forces will establish peace and security within the borders of the thirty-three states. Fighting rages across northern Illinois after the results of the referendum show that 90% of Windy City residents want to stay in the United States while 64% of the rest of Illinois had voted for secession, a result that left the results virtually deadlocked state-wide. Roving gangs of secessionists in pick-ups and SUVs maintained no-go zones outside Chicago for all but approved refugees from the city.

July 12, 2009. Most elements of the U.S. armed forces in Iraq begin to display Heartland colours, the red white and green crest with the prominent snow-capped mountain and shining star. One or two skirmishes are reported in Afghanistan between units loyal to the U.S.A. and the Heartland.

July 14, 2009. Prime Minister Harper announces recognition of the Heartland Republic. Riots break out in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax, calling for the governor general to dissolve the government. Liberal leader Ignatieff calls Harper "a dangerous ideologue who would further divide North America" and somewhat on cue, mass demonstrations of support for the Heartland break out in Alberta and some other parts of western Canada.

July 31, 2009. The constitution of the Heartland Republic is declared with an election set for the first Tuesday in November, and "every five years thereafter," to which Vice-President Cheney says, "this will give the two parties, the Freedom Party and the Liberty Party, ample opportunity to sort out their minor differences. Perhaps in time we will be able to lift the state of martial law and release the prisoners being held in Durango."

August, 2009. The Canadian government falls, and the Conservatives announce that they will run on a platform of western secession so that the four western provinces can join the Heartland Republic. The Mexican army, massing on the frontiers near Mexicali, are dispersed by tactical nuclear strikes and southern California is placed under extreme martial law. Illegal aliens are rounded up and deported en masse with a strong contingent of the newly formed Heartland Security Force in place to prevent their return.

September, 2009. Following a vote that divides Canada into strong eastern and western voting blocs, the four western provinces, the Yukon and the NWT join the Heartland Republic, as does Michigan following severe unrest across the state. A local militia seals off Detroit and is supplied from the Ontario side of the border.

The Canadian armed forces attempt to keep the four western provinces from establishing de facto independence, but elements of the Heartland Republic security forces pour in and find widespread support among the people. The Canadian armed forces jeep breaks down outside Moose Jaw, ending all resistance.

Vancouver declares that it will stay in Canada, and the four western premiers breathe a big sigh of relief.

2014 -- President Obama, in his second term, seeks political asylum in Cuba, and the remaining states of the union send a delegation to Oklahoma City to seek inclusion into the Heartland Republic. They are told to come back in twenty years. The Omaha Jets win the Super Bowl. The Oklahoma City Red Sox win the World Series.

2015 -- President Romney welcomes world leaders at the United Nations in Salt Lake City.

Hmmm. It seems another forum has this topic going also. Long read.

The Presidency of Barak Hussein Obama

The Media and elites are very excited about the upcoming presidency of Barak Hussein Obama, but I suspect that they will come to rue the day they supported him. Such is the nature of Revolutions.

All revolutions subsequent to the American Revolution, follow a certain pattern. The pattern was first expressed in the French Revolution. An unpopular regime, seen as predatory on its citizenry and out of touch with their needs or desires, is overthrown in a popular uprising. Many different dissatisfied groups find common cause in their distaste for the old regime, so they band together, gaining the numbers, power, and influence to overthrow the existing order. Very shortly after the euphoria of victory (within days if not hours), the victorious revolutionaries begin to recognize their vastly different views as to what type of regime should replace the one that was just removed. Upon seizing the instruments of government, the different factions begin a bloody struggle to become the dominant force in the new order. Quickly, the most organized, most ruthless group, starts to become dominant. They then set about using violence to consolidate power and liquidate (kill, banish, or imprison) their enemies from amongst their revolutionary brothers. This phase of a revolution is called “the terror”. It is frequently bloody to such a great degree that this period is forever remembered by all the world for its barbarity. The guillotine days of the French Revolution, The Killing Fields, the Purges of the Soviet Union, the Genocide in Rwanda, the Cultural Revolution in China, to name but a few.

All revolutions have echoes of these patterns. Another common pattern in revolutions or power shifts, noted in countries around the world, is that the incoming regime tends to adopt what they believe to be the patterns and methods of the regime they replace. When Mugabe took power in Zimbabwe, he reconstituted the Rhodesian instruments of state power, and began pursuing his political opponents in the same ways as he had felt pursued when he was the rebel. After the Russian revolution, the Bolsheviks modeled their domestic intelligence methods and offices on the Czarist counter-revolutionary intelligence apparatus. This scenario has played itself out countless times around the globe thru ought history. From Asia, to Europe, to Africa, to Latin America, we see these patterns emerge time and again.

How is this relevant to the Presidency of Barak Hussein Obama? It is relevant because it is probably instructional as to what we can expect to see in the next four years. Barak sees himself, and has always seen himself as a “revolutionary”. His clarion call for “change” is nothing more than a sanitized version of the causes he has always championed since his youth, his mothers condemnation of the status quo, “the way things are”. Since he has surrounded himself with radical thinkers, ranging from Reverend Wright, to Bill Ayers, and even his wife Michelle, we know his world view is sympathetic to the idea that blacks and minorities, the “underprivileged” have been repressed in America. He likely believes that such organizations as the FBI, the NSA, the Justice Department, the IRS, the BATFE, and other instruments of state power have been used to attack and undermine left leaning political groups, movements, and individuals. What we do not know is how far he believes those and other government organs have gone in their efforts at “repression”. Some of his fellow travelers go so far as to believe in Oliver Stone-like fantasies of assassinations, disappearances, secret imprisonment, arson, bombings, etc. Others in his circles merely perceive the government as working in secret cabal with the existing elites to advance their own financial enrichment. Since he has been disciplined in his public pronouncements, keeping his positions limited to generalities, much of Barak’s personal beliefs are opaque. However, the degree to which he and his retinue believe in these conspiracies, will be the degree to which we can expect them to use the instruments of state power to practice these techniques, directed back on their real or perceived enemies. Due to the extreme degree of belief, by people he has associated himself with like Reverend Wright, those actions could be extreme indeed. We may see his administration work primarily towards legislation and rulings targeted for enriching themselves, or we may see the emergence of a truly sinister power apparatus, that will physically endanger his perceived enemies.

We can expect an Obama administration to turn the Bush anti-terrorism powers, back on US citizens whose political views oppose Barak’s “revolution”. Anyone who opposes him, or any of his programs will be considered as a counter-revolutionary, and a danger to the state. He will define himself, and his objectives, as “the State, and “the states interests”. To the degree his people felt that their views were unexpressed in national media, they will seek to muzzle any national media which attempts to undermine him, or his objectives. They will use the powers of the FCC, and the Justice Department to do so. To the extent he believes the NRA or conservative gun owners may be hostile to him or his objectives, he will treat them as “domestic terrorists” or “suspected domestic terrorists” and will imagine plots against himself, his administration, and employees. Under this theory there will be close monitoring of any perceived “right wing” groups, and probably attempts at infiltration, trumped up charges, and prosecution. To the degree he felt the entertainment industry elements that were friendly to him were maligned, intimidated, or undermined, he and his people will use state power to pursue his enemies in the that industry. The degree of this will not depend on the degree to which his side were actually harried, but rather to the degree they believe they were. If historical world context holds true, the degree of his abuses will far exceed any actual behavior prior to his “revolution”.

We can expect to see attempted nationalization of industries he deems important to his “change” agenda. We can expect Justice Department lawsuits, and attacks by regulatory agencies across the board to force compliance by private persons and business to comply with his agenda. We can expect his administration to push a “crush Rush” “fairness doctrine” type bill through his Democratic congress, mandating all FCC licensed stations or networks give free air time to anyone defending him, if some news or entertainment outlet dare criticize him. Those who blog, or post information critical of him or his policies, can expect to be attacked with litigation, as he wields full state power to destroy the “counter revolutionaries”. The legal theories to support such action will be creative, possibly based on “hate” legislation, or libel, slander, or “national security”. The IRS will become a regular instrument of state terror, used like the KGB or GRU and their counterparts in all countries that have been ruled by a “socialist revolution”. Regardless of the legal validity, the result will be ruinous litigation costs, designed to silence opponents though their inability to withstand costly, interminable, litigation.

A close analogy exists in recent American history, the presidency of Jimmy Carter. The public was very unhappy with the presidency of Richard Nixon, and associated President Ford with the Nixon era. They were unhappy with foreign policy, the domestic economy, and the national media were committed to defeating the administration. President Carter, a largely unknown figure, was elected with a vague mandate to “clean up Washington”. When his agenda became known, it did so by his actions, as he began trying to force American compliance with such policies as a national conversion to the Metric system, deep cuts in defense spending, and an international agenda based not on American interests, but rather on “human rights” (resulting in numerous regimes being taken over by forces hostile to the US, most notably Iran), his popularity plummeted. The backlash against Carter not only brought Ronald Reagan to the presidency, but also created a couple of generations of die-hard conservatives. The backlash against Carter and the democratic party was deep and long lasting. However, Carter at least had the benefits of seeming familiar to most Americans, being caucasion, and having been to the Naval Academy, as well as his background as a farmer. Obama enjoys none of these sympathetic personal factors.

The backlash against Barak Obama will be phenomenal, as many of his erstwhile supporters will be horrified at how his vision contrasts with theirs, combined with those who opposed him to begin with, and those who never really understood what his policies would be. Like in any revolution, he will turn his power on his former revolutionary “brothers”. Civil libertarians, opposed to Bush’s security “Patriot Act” agenda, will among the first to realize Obama is not their savior, but merely a replacement of the frying pan, with the fire. Jewish groups, suspicious of Bush’s association between Christianity and the government functions, will be next, as they find none of their personal interests served or protected by Barak’s new regime. Many of the “educated elites” will rapidly become disillusioned as they discover the wealth that Barak intends to take for redistribution, will be theirs. Doctors, lawyers, and college professors never fare well when a socialist revolution takes place, and Obama’s intentions are at least a quasi-socialist revolution, if not an outright one. The media may become justifiably frightened as they see comrades who are only slightly to the right of themselves, suddenly facing legal action, or persecution. The dilemma of Don Imus must have made some media members sleep less well at night, and what will come, will be more than merely un-nerving to them. Just as the communists found themselves hunted in Iran by the Khomeini islamist faction after they had together overthrown the Shah, so too will many of Barak’s supporters find themselves targets when they begin to question his methods. The more he does, the greater will be the resistance. In turn, the greater the resistance to his methods and agenda, the harsher and more heavy handed his methods will become. Typically, the socialist revolutionary becomes a dictator “to protect the revolution”, as in Zimbabwe, Cuba, Russia, China, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Uganda, Romania, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, etc.

An unknown element of this will be the race factor. Some black American may feel compelled to defend him and his actions, regardless of what those actions entail, simply because they realize that his poor performance and unpopularity will reflect badly on them, undermining their case in the American psyche. Also, we do not know the degree to which Barak will publicly or privately attribute racism as the motivation of his perceived enemies. Theoretically, this could make Barak’s revolution partially racial in nature, setting a stage similar to some truly horrific precedents. In those political struggles in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, where there was a racial or ethnic component to the struggle, competing tribes turned the contest into one of violent conflicts, where the political power struggle became one of life and death, sometimes resulting in attempted genocide. Neighbor turned on neighbor, denouncing one another to the most violent elements of the other side, sometimes placing husbands and wives, and children on opposite sides of an insurmountable divide. Depending upon how embattled the Obama administration becomes, he may begin to surround himself with security and “law enforcement” functionaries, only of his own race, or perceived sympathetic groups. One recalls how the Michael Jackson clan turned to the “Black Muslims” for security at the height of his persecution by law enforcement, though his family had long only been associated with a deeply Christian background. If so, the perceived conflict will grow deeper and more intractable. Since black Americans only comprise about 12% of the population as a whole, this could be very dangerous for them, and even if the four years pass with only relatively mild conflict, it will do irreparable harm to race relations in the country, as they are cumulatively lumped in with Barak’s defenders (whether they defended his actions or not).

Internationally, Barak Hussein Obama is perceived as a Muslim, or at least of Islamic heritage. While his supporters may hope that this will allow him to achieve favorable negotiations with our Islamic enemies, this will not be the case. Any student of the Middle East knows that the Islamic nations there, are bitter enemies of each other, and are quite aggressive with one another. The only point they can agree on is their hatred of the “Great Satan” (the United States), and the “Little Satan” (Israel). Their animosity against the Europeans is split, depending on which state was the colonial “sponsor” between WWI and WWII. Since they serve only the self interests of the individual families that control the states, we can expect them to remain hostile to US interests, regardless of whether or not they believe Barak Hussein Obama to be a muslim. Their poor relations with the US are wholly independent of our connection to Israel, as they see themselves as our competitors both economically and for the domination of world culture. They want to increase our dependence on their product (oil), they want to extract the highest price from us that they possibly can, and they want to weaken us militarily, so that we are in no position to resist their efforts to extract ever higher payments from us, or interfere in their machinations in their region or around the world. If the election of Hussein Obama has any impact at all on their behavior, it will merely be to embolden them in their actions against Israel, since they may perceive him to be a less than enthusiastic supporter of Israel’s right to exist.

If the United State sees fit to elect this young, radical, uninspected, freshman senator to the highest office in the nation, placing him at the helm of our military, economic, social, and diplomatic agendas, the great likelihood is that he will fail on nearly all counts. The repercussions of his failure will inflict a grievous wound on our body politic, economically, internationally, and on our internal cohesion. The price for our fit of pique, due to our dissatisfactions with the existing governments polices, will be high indeed. Those who seek to dispose of that which is merely good, thinking they will acquire that which is perfect, usually end up with neither.

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.