Posted on 06/09/2003 10:41:16 PM PDT by wallcrawlr
I agree that they may likely try. The problem from their standpoint will be whether to wait a bit and hope the effort will peter out or die of its own weight, or over-react too quickly, and not only inspire sympathetic reaction for the porcupines, but potential political suicide for their own political futures; remember what happened to Republican Herbert Hoover after he sent US troops in against the *Bonus Army* veterans marchers in Washington in 1932.
First, the pressure will be economic.
Again, I concur. And that's been considered and planned for. And turn about is fair play.
If that doesn't work, they'll send in the troops and the JBTs.
And that too has been considered and planned for. And I do hope they recall President Kennedy's words quoting John Stuart Mill that Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. I hope that is not their intent, since that would constitute proof of an intent to commit both premeditated murder and treason, and would constitute grounds for a regime change...and other Unintended Consequences.
You're welcome. Your conclusion is quite reasonable based on past events and conventional wisdom. This is something new with a few added twists in, so there's no established track record from which the result can be reasonably predicted, and any of a thousand factors could guarantee success or spell disaster for the idea. But it's going to be interesting to watch as it happens.
-archy-/-
And that too has been considered and planned for. And I do hope they recall President Kennedy's words quoting John Stuart Mill that Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. I hope that is not their intent, since that would constitute proof of an intent to commit both premeditated murder and treason, and would constitute grounds for a regime change...and other Unintended Consequences.
In their eyes, they having to lose sending the troops in. They'll be enforcing the Federal laws the Free Staters nullified (restrictions on guns, drugs, etc. and which most sheeple support). They'll have the public support and the media behind them. The Free Staters will only have the guns they bring in and what they can smuggle. (They'll evacuate the Guard's heavy weapons first to prevent Free Staters from taking it over). As for the army, some will not follow orders to fire on their own countrymen, but I think most will. Most people join the military for financial benefits (GI Bill, medical benefits, job training, etc.) They have no self-interest to refuse orders.
That's the reason for picking a goal state that's not primarily populated with sheeple, just good folks who need an example set for them and a little assistance in getting their own inertia rolling.
They'll have the public support and the media behind them.
Don't bet the farm on that.
The Free Staters will only have the guns they bring in and what they can smuggle. (They'll evacuate the Guard's heavy weapons first to prevent Free Staters from taking it over). ,P. Oh no. Don't *just* think guns, though that's a part of the package. And don't *just* think of such things within the boundaries of the one state, either. Remember what I wrote in the earlier posts about fighting a guy while he's distracted, as by having his trousers ablaze...and turn about being fair play.
As for the army, some will not follow orders to fire on their own countrymen, but I think most will.
By gum, the fish 'n game wardens 'll arrest 'em for poaching!
Most people join the military for financial benefits (GI Bill, medical benefits, job training, etc.) They have no self-interest to refuse orders.,P. A lot of 'em anyway, and a lot in the *tail* of logistical support and facilities personnel who keep the *Army of One* clothed, fed, housed and up-to-date on his human relations counseling, and well supplied with beans, boots and blankets.
But I don't want them to refuse lawful orders. And any chief executive who sends US troops against an entire state's groundswell political movement just for opposing his party-line dictates could expect to replace Clinton as the most recently impeached president...or JFK as the last one to have died in office.
Remember that if the president uses US military personnel in an illegal action against his political opposition, he not only invites the probability that such actions will unite ALL his opponents, but can find himself facing charges of being a terrorist, as well... and there goes any moral high ground he ever once held:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
-- Federal Bureau of Investigation Definition
-archy-/-
LOL....as if we would ever be attacked if it weren't for our worldwide military presense...
First one proposed by Reagan and the torch continues on thru to today....
The people signing up and, eventually, moving are not likely to skip the ballot box. They will be necessarily dedicated to the effort and with 20K dedicated volunteers I'm pretty well certain that change would be rapid......I doubt that Klowntoon had 20K dedicated people pulling for him.
Please look at some of my previous posts on libertarianism. That will elimiante any confusion as to where I stand. It will also eliminate duplication in this thread.
Various histories of the fall of Rome might help build understanding of this.
My position is a bit different. There are people and groups in the world who would attack the United States even if we had never sent a single soldier beyond our shores. Who? Radical islamicists, communists, anarchist, organized criminals, etc.
Let's consider this for conservative Republicans. In the Last South Dakota Senatoral election the Democrat won by 8,689 votes. If 4,350 Republicans establised residency in South Dakota, the Republicans would have one more conservative Senator today.
D'Amato spent about 22 million dollars to lose to Chucky Schumer in New York. With about a third of that money the Republican party could have offered a $20,000 subsidy to each of the 4,350 families to move to South Dakota. They wuldn't have to move there permanently; just long enough to establish residency and vote.
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.