Posted on 04/13/2012 6:53:58 PM PDT by mek1959
Earlier this week, Scott posted an article on our facebook page titled, "Will It Take Revolution?" published by Canada Free Press. As I was reading through the article, I couldn't help but think that Mark, Scott, or I could have penned it because the content almost mirrored our constant dialogue over the past year or two. The author, Douglas V. Gibbs, brilliantly captures the essence of the current political landscape and ultimately makes the same point that military leaders do in times of intense situations: "All options must be on the table."
(Excerpt) Read more at forgottenmen.com ...
You can’t have constituional freedom and socialism at the same time. One precludes the other.
Yes. It’s time for bold conservatives to take over the states and tell the feds to back off. Not in their constiutional duties, but meddling in the states duties.
Fight the RINO’s locally first and then send more conservatives from that point to DC to take on the rest.
Unfortunately, our governor in TN is a weenie RINO like our two senators.
But the GOP controlled legislature just passed a bill to eliminate the state tax on estates after a death and lowered the sales tax on food a quarter percent.
A good start but not enough. We have half a percent of “temporary sales tax” still in the code since 1990 on all taxable sales. At least we don’t have an income tax here.
It does not have to be a full split. All 50 states could remain organized for mutual self defense and other things authorized by the Constitution. "USA" could refer to something more like NATO -- the original US govt was more similar to NATO than it was to our current Socialist Nation State. A subset of states could voluntarily join together in a multi-state Socialist system. We did it before with Free States and Slave States, and we can do it again.
If you woke up in Vegas married to a Leftist shrew, would you really want to preserve that marriage and keep the families together?
Think about it. This is what we are married to:
Looking at your map, it seems best to form regional blocks of States that have various agreements with other blocks of States.
For example, the XL Pipeline States would include Montana and North Dakota south to Texas., etc.
On the Fourth of July each year there could be a stage play on the National Mall with actors from all fifty of the former States.
The topic of the play would be decided each year by the Regional State that had the greatest profit.
No plays would be held in years when none of the Regional States had a profit.
I wonder if the money will do it. If the federal deficit gets high enough, perhaps some state or states will decide they’ve had enough, that belonging to the union isn’t worth it anymore.
Cool! How’d we end up with Alberta? Do we have to take Neil Young, too?
Nope. Leftists would self deport from the Free States. The Free States will have no more cushy govt jobs, no welfare queening or subsidies for Leftism. So there would be no reason for them to stay among those icky Conservatives.
“One problem is that the states have been selling their powers to the feds for many decades and the feds learned early on that they can play states against each other.”
Divide and conquer is a standard tool of tyrants going back to the beginning. It is somewhat mystifying that the forefathers left us so poorly prepared to deal with this obvious stratigy instead largely relying upon the power & inclination of a “free press”.
A “Free press” that has while serving from time to time, has just as often been cooped by folks interested in centerlizing power. The reason we are where we are now is no doubt a result of the radical new capabilities of information distribution & publishing made possible by the internet.
No longer do we have just a handful of channels to be coopted for IDEA & information to get thou. Every voice no matter how marginizes has a medium to get his or her message out to be judged on merits.
“
Indeed, our last line of defense against an out-of-control national government has sold itself into slavery and as Roberts stated, “compromised their status as independent sovereigns.” Sadly, everybody is so focused on a pretend solution (i.e. getting a republican into the White House) they’re ignoring the very entity that could actually reign in the national government...the States.
“
Your Absoulty right mek1959, The sad irony is, the wording of Article 1 section 8 clause 1 of the Federal Constitution was expcisly designed to prohibit such by limiting Federal expenditures(either from tax or debt) to Both enumerated and uniform applications.
The Federal court has ignore this, and the States that enforce it find their competition holding paper they are forced to honor as “legal tender”. (Anther lawless problem that started either with the Lincoln administration which we will not go into).
The point is theses problems compound upon each other, and ultimately come down to money. The good news is with modern tecnoligy we have the practical ability to work around such things better. We can simply demand an absurdly large amount of Federal reserve notes or a fixed amount of money in coins.
Our States can make the coins Legal tender so that folks who go around with coins instead of Federal Reserve notes will always be able to use them.(Note we would still be using credit & debit cards, as well as checks they just be measured in coins, rather than Federal Reserve notes.)
So there are many clever things we can do to attack the problem.
If the Feds even nominally follow the Constitution we can uses tricks like this made possible by modern tecnoligy to weaken their financial footing, while stabling our own. Of course as you know the Feds don’t follow the rules even nominally, and they will as such attack gold & silver currency’s particular if they ever become popular.
I agree whole heartily.
Although I would point out the problems with deportation aside from cost is there is no place on earth roomy enough for them and most importantly no place to drive future liberals.
It is possible that that which makes a man Liberal or conservative is a product of their family & genetic code. But it is also possible for a great many people it is something else less controllable. In that case simply shipping out the current lot will only leave us with a future lot of “miss fits” on both sides of the wall.
An ideal situation would be to maintain a trade of people, so that their future conservatives can come live with us in freedom and our future liberals can go live with them in slavery.(might be difficult to convince future liberals to go to their destitute and enslaved states, we will just have to find away).
IF you have a lot of time, check my paper.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/modern.pdf
If you don’t, read this instead:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/one.pdf
Then check this blog post, which explains why information is relevant.
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/?p=212
Conservatism is what happens when an intelligent animal with a K-selected psychology (reproductive strategy) can vocalize and espouse the urges he is imbued with.
Liberalism is what an intelligent animal will espouse, if they have an r-type psychology (reproductive strategy) inherent to their nature.
Both are genetic, and they are present in every other species in nature. These two reproductive strategies, drawn from the well characterized field of population biology, are what lay beneath our ideological predispositions. K-strategists embrace free competition, support abstinence until monogamy, and support high-investment, two-parent child-rearing. r-strategists are driven to perform avoidance of competition, promiscuity instead of monogamy, sexualization of the young, and low-investment single-parent child-rearing.
The problem we have now, is that America is so productive, we can funnel free resources to the r-type psychologies in our populations. Given free resources, these r-type psychologies do what r-type psychologies are designed to do. They multiply using promiscuity, selfishness, single parenting, and avoidance of competition. They then demand more resources, so they may continue as they are programmed to do. In a way, our greatness has produced so much in the way of free resources, that we have placed a massive r-selection stress on our population, favoring the growth of Liberalism. The national debt, particularly, is just an artificial construct supporting the continued growth of the r-type, Liberal favoring sub-population within our nation.
As I point out in the paper, this effect continues in nature, until there are no longer enough resources to support the r-type population’s exponential growth. In our case, this will be the moment China ceases to buy our debt (or sudden global cooling suddenly makes everything more expensive). At that point, the free money spigot closes, snapping resource shortages upon our population. Even worse, we will have debt payments, further draining resources, and heightening the resultant K-selection pressures. This period will not be fun. It will be like the Depression, with people coming to your back door to beg for a piece of bread. It will favor those who compete and work, and work well with others (by respecting their fellow citizens, and rewarding success). It will favor the K-type psychology.
When the free resources are suddenly no longer available, those r-types who are only fit to suckle at the governmental teat will either leave for a more socialist environ, be imprisoned for crime, or be otherwise neutered in effect (too busy trying to survive to rabble rouse and protest for oppression). The r-type allele will wane, and Conservatism will rise just as the K-type psychology rises in a population where one must compete to survive.
If you see this in nature, it is exactly the same. Conservatism never dies, because free resources cannot be made available to everyone, in limitless quantities, forever and ever. It just can’t happen. Revolution will not be necessary, given the economic cliff we are approaching.
I’m not interested in divorce or a “peaceful split”. Neither is the left. They intend to deport us, put us in re-eduction camps, or kill us.
Wow, it’s encouraging to see how many people support the Jeffersonian notion of “altering or abolishing” the national government...now we’re getting somewhere!
I started reading your articles this morning and will continue this weekend. Thanks
For those who would like, please join us on air today from 12:00 - 2:00 pm on AM 930, WFDM (or by going to our website www.forgottenmen.com and click “Listen Live”). Also, on the Forgotten Men website, you can join our chat room which is live during the show.
Like I said, I’m encouraged that so many are willing to think outside the box that the two-party system has most locked in. As Dr. Phil is famous for saying; “how’s that working out for you?” Our response must be, if we’re at all intellectually honest, not too well. And then my response on air, along with my co-host Joshua who wrote this piece, is “ok, then let’s get to the business of real change, not the sophomoric change offered by the national campaigns.”
Hope to see many in the chat room today.
That is the historical pattern for Leftists. That is the direction we are going. This is another reason to pursue a divorce.
To continue the marriage metaphor, a women married to a brutal wife beater with a pattern of killing his prior wives had better gather her kids and split ASAP.
The marriage Metaphor does NOT work. Our forefathers never entered into this union with the idea that it was till death do we part. The propose of the union was to help protect & preserve our rights from primarily foreign aggressors. It was quite implosive as was just demonstrated in the American revolution that should it become destructive to these ends we would get rid of it.
The Federal union is NOT like a marriage.
It is ironic, that the Federal Government has grown too big for us to effectily alter, and unless we get smart perhaps too big to abolish as well.
Jeffersonian ideas are not well liked by people & governments with dreams of empire. They are consequently quite difficult to defend from the same empires. If we are to decide to take down the Federal Government it will not go down quietly. Indeed with respect to history(1861) we would almost certantly have to device a large number of very clever political tricks & long term political maneuvering designed to trick the gigantic monster into tripping over its own feet.
It is not impossible to slay such a beast, it simply requires we uses its own unwieldy bulk, and incompetendets to our advantage.
I regreat that I don’t have time to fully read your papers, although from what I skimmed it does seem like an interesting bit of speculation. I do think there are many conservatives that are non-monogamous.
I would also point out that the value of monogamy is due to to the particular resource problem regarding childrearing & education which results from biological needs of humans having the longest childhood of any species (again due to our need to learn).
the point is some people might offload this responsablity to the woman while going on to spread their seed to as many other women as possable. Thus leaving our women to bare the burden of sustaining the civilization more or less alone. But that is not the way even a sucessfull civilization surives.
You would think that fact is quite self-evident given the sub-replacement level birth rates in the west. Our civilization is quite litterly dying. We are not having children or enough children to even keep going, and the leftist portions of our population are at the sphere head of this extradition.
It is possible that the women of our civilization cannot and will not bare this burden alone. And thus our civilization slides into extinction & replacement in “the best of times”.
So i guess you could say this is a problem that solves itself biologically as well as financially by killing us.
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.