Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label secession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secession. Show all posts

Monday, March 12, 2018

Normal Americans Will Not Put Up With Depravation Of Their Rights

Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too

Kurt  Schlichter
|
Posted: Mar 12, 2018 12:01 AM
Why Democrats Would Lose the Second Civil War, Too
  
It’s obvious that the central tenet of the Democrat Party platform is now hatred and contempt for Normal Americans. Taking their cue from the elites in Europe and Canada who are stripping dissenters of their free speech rights and religious freedoms, the leftist elite is moving to solidify its hold on power here with the eager assistance of tech companies and the moral support of the Fredocons who yearn to return to pseudo-relevance as the ruling class’s slobberingly loyal opposition. In California, the leftist government is practically firing on Fort Sumter. And nationally, these aspiring fascists are especially eager to disarm Normal Americans – doing so would be an object lesson in who’s the boss, as well as solving that frustrating problem of the Normals having the ability to resist.
Probably because I’ve spent time where they actually had a civil war, many people ask me – people whose names you know – whether I think this turmoil will all end in a Second Civil War. They are seriously concerned, and not without cause – the left’s hatred for Normal Americans and its dedication to totally stripping the people who are the backbone of this country of their ability to participate in their own governance is threatening to rip the country apart.
Do I think there will be a civil war? No, but there could be. This is the Age of Black Swans, and anything is possible – we could easily see the country split into red and blue. Civil war is unlikely, but never underestimate Democrat stupidity and hatred. The Schlichter family learned that lesson a century and half ago, the last time the Democrats decided to try to impose their hatred of basic human rights on the rest of the country, when an army of Democrats burned our family hometown.
Oh, they paid for it. And they would pay again. Democrats are 0-1 in insurrections, and if they went for another round, they would be 0-2. It’s a matter of terrain, numbers, and morale.
Democrats, who think history began when Obama was elected, don’t understand the dangerous game they are playing when they talk about how they want to impose their brown shirt vision upon red America. The keyboard commandos of the left seek to hand wave away the massive strategic challenge of imposing control by force upon a well-armed, decentralized citizenry occupying the vast majority of the territory, so they babble about drones and tanks as counterinsurgency trump cards. But there are no trump cards in war. There are men, with rifles, standing on patches of dirt, killing the people trying to push them off. That’s the ugly reality of war. And multiply the usual brutality of war by ten when it’s a civil war.
There are two Civil War II scenarios, and the left is poorly positioned to prevail in either one. The first scenario is that the Democrats take power and violate the Constitution in order to use the apparatus of the federal government to suppress and oppress Normal Americans. In that scenario, red Americans are the insurgents. In the second scenario, which we can even now see the stirrings of in California’s campaign to nullify federal immigration law, it is the blue states that are the insurgents.
The Democrats lose both wars. Big time.
Let’s talk terrain and numbers. Remember the famous red v. blue voting map? There is a lot of red, and in the interior the few blue splotches are all cities like Las Vegas or Denver. That is a lot of territory for a counter-insurgent force to control, and this is critical. The red is where the food is grown, the oil pumped, and through which everything is transported. And that red space is filled with millions of American citizens with small arms, a fairly large percentage of whom have military training.
Remember what two untrained idiots did in Boston with a couple of pistols? They shut a city down. Now multiply that by several million, with better weapons and training.
Let’s look at the counter-insurgent forces in the Democrat oppression scenario should they attempt to misuse our law enforcement and military in an unconstitutional manner to take the rights of American citizens. There are a lot of civilian law enforcement officers, but the vast majority of the agencies are local – sheriffs, small town police departments. They will not be reliable allies in supporting unlawful oppression of their friends and neighbors. The major cities’ police departments are run by Democrat appointees, so the commands would be loyal. But the rank-and-file? A small percentage would be ideologically loyal. More would be loyal because that’s their paycheck – they could be swayed or intimidated to support the rebels. Others would be actively sympathetic to the insurgents. This is true of federal law enforcement agencies as well.
And the military? Well, wouldn’t the military just crush any resistance? Not so fast. The military would have the combat power to win any major engagement, but insurgents don’t get into major engagements with forces that have more combat power. They instead leverage their decentralized ability to strike at the counter-insurgents’ weak points to eliminate the government’s firepower advantage. In other words, hit and run, and no stand-up fights.
For example, how do a bunch of hunters in Wisconsin defeat a company of M1A2 Abrams tanks? They ambush the fuel and ammo trucks. Oh, and they wait until the gunner pops the hatch to take a leak and put a .30-06 round in his back from 300 meters. Then they disappear. What do the tanks do then? Go level the nearest town? Great. Now they just moved the needle in favor of the insurgents among the population. Pretty soon, they can’t be outside of their armored vehicles in public. Their forces are spending 90% of their efforts not on actual counter-insurgency operations but on force protection. Sure, they own their forward operating bases, and they own a few hundred meters around them wherever they happen to be standing at the moment, but the rest of the territory is bright red. As my recent novel illustrates, American guerillas with small arms are a deadly threat to the forces of a dictatorship.
But the military is so big it would overwhelm any rebels, right? Well, how big do you think the military is? And, more importantly, how many actual boots on the ground can it deploy? Let’s put it in terms of brigade combat teams, which total about 4,500 troops each. There are about 60 brigades in the Army, active and reserve, here and abroad, and let’s give the Marines another 10 brigades, for about 70 brigades. Sounds impressive. But that’s deceptive.
Let’s put aside a big consideration – the existence of red states that would provide for an insurgent government structure and possibly attract the loyalty of some National Guard and even federal brigades. For example, if President Hillary Clinton put down her chardonnay long enough to sign a ban on privately owned guns, it’s not unreasonable to expect the governor of Texas to reject federal authority – after all, California just taught us that this is totally cool. But in this case, look for several brigades located there to hoist the Lone Star flag.
So, now the blue states are facing unconventional and conventional forces.
Let’s ignore that problem and focus on a different challenge. Even a normal unit has about 10% non-deployable members. Now, if these troops were assigned to combat operations against other Americans, you would have significant additional losses through desertion. Many of the senior leaders would participate – the Obama generation – and there is a certain type of junior officer only too happy to curry favor by sucking up in defiance of their oath (which is to the Constitution, not to some leftist president). You can identify them because they usually have “strategist” in their Twitter bios. But a lot of key, capable officer and NCO leaders, and enlisted troops, would vanish. That is proper. It is a violation of their oath to unconstitutionally oppress fellow Americans; their duty would be to refuse such unlawful orders.
So, you have significantly understrength units going in. Now, how many of the troops in a brigade are actually even front line combat troops? About a third – the rest are support. So a brigade is really about 1500 riflemen tops before you count losses. Cut those in half for sleep, training, and refitting at any one time (which is very generous) and your brigade is really 750 troops on your best day with everyone showing up. Realistically, it’s 300.
That holds one mid-sized town. And there are hundreds of mid-sized towns. Plus there are millions of Normal Americans who would fight back. Nothing would move without their permission – a few guys shooting up big rigs along the interstate would shut down the entire trucking industry. Bottom line: there simply are not enough military forces to clear and hold red America.
What about drones and bombers? Both are useful. But the minute a bombing strike kills some red civilians the families of counter-insurgent drone operators and pilots will be knocking at the base gates to be let inside. Now you’ll need many of those brigades to protect the civilians you now need to protect from retribution.
Civil wars are harsh. That’s why you avoid them.
How about the blue insurgency scenario? That goes even worse for the Democrats. You have the federal government apparatus in the hands of red America, and the insurgents are the opposite of decentralized and armed. They are conveniently centered in gun-unfriendly blue cities. In other words, the blue civilian population is much less of a threat.
A red counter-insurgency avoids the problem of a decentralized insurgency and insecure logistical lines. In the case of California, whose secessionist antics are approaching the point where President Trump could legitimately employ his power to crush insurrections, the tactical problem is relatively simple. For example, San Francisco is a hotbed of treason, but the populace is largely unarmed and is trapped in a confined area. You put a brigade on securing the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, then put a brigade on the San Francisco Peninsula to cut off the I-280 and US-101 corridors. Next you go to the Crystal Springs Dam and cut off the water. Then you watch and wait as the tech hipsters run out of artisanal sushi rice and kombucha.
After about a week, they surrender. After all, you can’t eat and drink smugness. LA is just bigger in scope – more corridors to cut off, but in the end the population concentrations in large liberal urban areas that are their strength also make them extremely vulnerable to logistical pressure.
Then there’s another factor, an intangible but a crucial one. It’s commitment. The Democrat threat to peace is based on its policies designed to deprive Normal Americans of their right to speak freely, to worship freely, and to defend themselves and their rights with firearms. Make no mistake – millions of Normal Americans are willing to risk death to defend those rights. In fact, many swore to do so when they entered our military and law enforcement. But who is the leftist big talker willing to die to impose the fascist dream of censorship, religious oppression, and disarmament on Normal American citizens? Is the screeching SJW at Yale going to suit up in Kevlar? Is the Vox columnist going to grab a M4? Is the Hollywood poser going to switch her gyno-beanie for a helmet?
No. Hell, we just heard our liberal opponents explaining why a cop shouldn’t be expected to go fight a scumbag murdering kids because it’s scary. America might split apart, but it’s highly unlikely Team Kale n’ Vinyl would fight should their big talk finally push Normal America too far.

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Secession Will Never Work For Any State Or Territory

Despite Secession Talk, Breaking Up Is Hard To Do

  • May 04, 2017
  •  
  • By Mindy Fetterman
California secession
Supporters of a new state along the California-Oregon border rally at the Capitol in Sacramento in 2016. Recent secession efforts have included fairly large, ongoing campaigns in Texas and California and smaller pushes in Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, West Virginia and New York’s Long Island.
© The Associated Press
Editor's Note: This story has been updated to correctly say the 10th Amendment relates to state powers.
APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE, Va. — When two generals signed papers here 152 years ago bringing the Civil War to a close, they ended the bid by 11 Southern states to secede from the Union. And that, most believed, was that.
Yet ever since the South’s Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to the North’s Gen. Ulysses S. Grant in 1865, groups across the United States have advocated seceding from the country, their own states, or in a few cases, their cities. Recently, these efforts have ranged from fairly large, ongoing campaigns in Texas and California to smaller pushes in Oklahoma, Maine, Utah, West Virginia and New York’s Long Island, among others.  
Just last month, a longshot effort to allow Californians to vote on seceding fell apart after one of the founders dropped out amid criticism of his ties to Russia. But a new group pushing secession has vowed to collect the nearly 600,000 signatures required by July to put the measure on the November 2018 ballot.
Last May, the Texas Nationalist Movement came within two votes of adding Texas independence language to the state’s Republican platform. And in Oklahoma, Republican state Sen. Joseph Silk in January introduced a bill to remove the word “inseparable” from the sentence in the state constitution describing Oklahoma as “an inseparable part of the Federal Union.”
The move for independence, whether it’s from the right of the political spectrum as in Texas, or the left as in California, reflects the political division felt across the country, said Edward Meisse, a supporter of the Yes California secession group that just disbanded. “We have two diametrically opposed philosophies in our country, and we’re just not getting anywhere,” he said. “I think we should allow states to secede so California can be California and Texas can be Texas.”
Nationwide, interest in seceding is fairly strong. An online survey by Reuters in 2014 found that nearly one in four Americans want their state to secede. The desire was highest — 34 percent — in the Southwest, which includes Texas.
In some areas of the country there is no organized effort to split from the U.S., just a feeling that “we’ve been left behind and no one cares about us,” said Dwayne Yancey, editorial page editor of The Roanoke Times who in March wrote what he called a “tongue in cheek” editorial, “Should Southwest Virginia secede from the rest of Virginia?
“Historically we have felt left out, and a number of those issues are coming to a head,” Yancey said. Southwest Virginia is mostly rural, white and poor. Coal mining has declined dramatically, although the city of Roanoke has had a stable economy with Virginia Tech University and other employers, he said. Yet, the feeling is that the state Legislature in Richmond is “not doing right by us here.”
Despite the heightened interest in secession, many lawyers and constitutional scholars say it’s legally impossible for a state to secede because the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue, and has no provision to allow it.  
The U.S. Supreme Court declared in an 1869 case, Texas vs. White, that the United States is “an indestructible union.” And the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a 2006 letter that “if there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”
Yet some lawyers, historians and secession groups argue that the 10th Amendment of the Constitution gives states the right to decide many issues which are not in the power of the federal government. And despite the legal obstacles, the desire for self-rule and separation from others with different political, social or moral views remains strong among some groups.
Being part of a secession movement is “about being a part of the group as it circles around its sacred values and marks out what is good and what is evil,” said Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist and professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business who has written about the moral differences between liberals and conservatives. “Joining a secession movement is an act of both self-expression and group expression,” he said.

Why Secede?

One of the first secession movements arose in New England, prompted by the War of 1812. A trade embargo against England had hurt New England’s economy, and a convention was held to discuss secession. Victory in that war put a halt to the movement.
Secession movements have sprung up sporadically ever since. But the election in 2008 of the first African-American president, Barack Obama, set off a spate of efforts to secede, some of which were tied to white supremacist movements.
In Texas, which was an independent republic between 1836 and 1846, there have long been groups interested in seceding from the U.S. But the Texas Nationalist Movement, which supports a statewide referendum to settle the question, grew dramatically during Obama’s presidency, said Daniel Miller, head of the Texas Nationalist Movement.
In California, the election of Donald Trump as president has fueled secession efforts. 
“We had 11,000 [signatures] before Trump, then that jumped to 30,000 in a day, then to 45,000,” said Marcus Ruiz Evans, co-founder of Yes California. “People joined because they hate Trump, but we’ve always said, ‘This isn’t about Trump. This is about a country that would elect him.’ A racist, a misogynist? Those are people you want to associate with?”
A second group in California led by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Tim Draper supported an effort to break California into six states. But supporters weren’t able to collect enough signatures to put it on the November 2016 ballot.
Brexit, the U.K.’s vote in June 2016 to leave the European Union, has heartened some U.S. secessionists, many of whom also support Scotland’s efforts to separate from the U.K. Draper’s group is working with Brexit supporter Nigel Farage of the U.K. to figure out a new strategy for splitting California into six states.
Texas and California secession groups argue that their state economies are large enough to stand alone, and that they pay more in taxes to the federal government than they get in services in return.
There’s no doubt that some secession groups are pro-white, anti-immigrant and racist, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which studies hate groups nationwide. In 2000, it named the League of the South, formed in 1994, as a hate group. Since 2014, the LOS has funded a billboard campaign in Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Arkansas with one big hashtag: #SECEDE.
Neither the former Yes California nor the Texas Nationalist Movement is on the SPLC’s list of hate groups, but the center says that “neo-Confederates,” who in many cases are openly secessionist, favor segregation and suggest white supremacy.

Could a State Pull Out?

Groups in Texas and California argue, in part, that because their states were once independent, they can be independent again. (A group of northern Californians claimed independence from Mexico for 25 days in 1846.)
But the U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it, says Gary Gallagher, director of the John L. Nau III Center for Civil War History and professor of history at the University of Virginia.
He and other legal scholars also point to the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1869. That case stemmed from Texas’ sale of U.S. government bonds during the Civil War, to help fund the Confederacy. When Texas rejoined the U.S. after the war, it argued the bonds had been sold illegally and wanted its money back.
The court ruled against Texas, declaring that Texas had “entered an indissoluble relation” when it joined the U.S., and that the country itself is a “perpetual union.”
Miller, who heads the Texas Nationalist Movement, sees it another way.
“If I had a nickel for every time someone says the Constitution doesn’t give your state the right, I’d be rich. It means that the Constitution is silent on the issue,” he said, referring to the right to secede. “So the fact that the Constitution doesn’t talk about it doesn’t eliminate it. It just means we have to turn to the court.”
Craig Lerner, professor of law at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia, disagrees. “We had a war over secession once, and that war seems to validate Lincoln’s view that a state can’t secede without the consent of all the states.”
Lerner agrees that Texas is a bit different because it used to be an independent state. But since Texas became a part of the United States in 1845, it lost that freedom to separate, he said.
Why do groups like the Texas Nationalist Movement persevere?
“The idea that people say that things will never happen, that this is some kind of pipe dream, well, I’m pretty sure that was the feeling of the British when they wanted to get out of the E.U.,” Miller said.
“Ever since the end of World War I, people have been seeking self-determination,” he said. “Look at Scotland. It never got a vote, but after 800 years, it gets two.” That, he believes, could happen for Texas.
Perhaps. But for now and the foreseeable future, only one flag flies at Appomattox Court House in Virginia: The U.S. flag.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

If California Wants To Secede Should We Allow Them? If So, What State Is Next? Could This Be The End Of The UNITED States?

Democrats are becoming the party of secession

Let’s agree that President Trump’s travel ban on visitors from seven nations was a sensible idea hobbled by flaws, especially regarding green card holders and dual citizens. Let’s also agree we haven’t seen a rollout this clumsy since the debut of ObamaCare, which was far more serious because it penalized millions of Americans while Trump’s order inconvenienced hundreds of foreign nationals.
Still, we can assume, based on past performance, that Trump will learn from the mistakes. His fierce determination to be a successful president cannot co-exist with rookie blunders.
But what about the other players in the drama? Can we say the media will now correct its excess of bile and cover Trump as a legitimate president and not as an invasive species?
No, no, no. On the contrary, we must say that Trump aide Steve Bannon was on target when he called the Washington media “the opposition party.”
Don’t take his word for it. Stick a toe into the toxic sludge that passes for straight-news coverage in the Washington Post, the New York Times and others.
Look for the use of tell words like “Muslim ban” to describe an executive order that is no such thing. Look for hero worship of protesters, immigrants, refugees, lawyers rushing to the barricades and congressional critics.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Look, too, at the Twitter feeds of editors and reporters from those papers and the major networks. You’ll see their embrace of everything anti-Trump, further evidence they are part of a movement to obstruct the president, not cover him.
Consider, too, their rediscovered love for Republican Sen. John McCain, a man they ignored during the eight-year reign of their savior, Barack Obama. McCain is again the good maverick because he is bucking the media’s permanent enemy, Republicans.
Yet if the media is the opposition party, what is the Democratic Party? It’s supposed to be the loyal opposition, using checks and balances to restrain the president and the excess of one-party rule.


Protesters gather at JFK Airport’s Terminal 4 in New York to demonstrate against President Trump’s executive order on Jan. 28, 2017.Getty Images

Unfortunately, the Dems are following a dangerously different path. Starting with a wide boycott of the inauguration and including their boycott of committee votes on Trump’s cabinet and their pledge to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee, Democrats resemble a party fomenting a secession movement.
Some call it Trump Derangement Syndrome, but that’s too kind. It’s not a temporarily insane reaction, it’s a calculated plan to wreck the presidency, whatever the cost to the country.
Things never seen in the modern era are now rapidly becoming common. Impeachment talk already is rumbling in the party’s hothouses, and Trump was met with a lawsuit the minute he took the oath.
Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, the top Dems in Congress, led a raucous demonstration Monday night, as if they are community organizers. And Obama couldn’t bear the irrelevance after eight days out of office and felt compelled to encourage disruptions.
This is Third World behavior and it’s now the M.O. of one of America’s two political parties.
Then there’s California, the epicenter of Dem strength. Radicals there, spurred on by pro-Mexico immigrants, are ginning up an effort to split from the United States and they might get a proposal on the ballot. I say we take their wine and let them go.
If California secedes and its 55 electoral votes come off the board, Dems will never win another American election. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton could become president of the breakaway state and the rest of us would be free of the Clinton stain.
Secession is one way the swamp could drain itself. Sally Yates’ way is another.
The acting attorney general was rightfully sacked the instant after she climbed a soapbox and refused to defend Trump’s executive order in court. It would have been a more admirable gesture if she had the decency to resign. Instead, she thought she could defy the president and keep the job.
Her choice was not a minor act of insubordination. It was a public challenge to the constitutional authority of the president, a power left to Congress and the judiciary.
As a result, she was shunned and hid in disgrace. Oh, wait, that’s what would happen in a better world.
In this one, Democrats hailed her as a “patriot” amid predictions a political star is born.
My prediction is that Dems are digging their own grave and their revolt against his legitimacy will, in the short term at least, boost Trump’s popularity. Most Americans will conclude he is honestly trying to fulfill the mandate he won and that the fevered rush to destroy him is neither principled nor patriotic.
There is a catch: Our cultural impatience won’t give Trump endless time or big room for error. He must pick his fights with discretion and wage them with smart, methodical moves that bring clear results.
Equally key, he can’t become a prisoner of Washington. While social media is important, he must get out of town regularly to meet people where they live and remind them that he’s fighting their fights.
He should continue to court core Democrats, especially members of manufacturing unions and open-minded black and Latino voters.
If he does all that, and if he’s lucky, America will be great again. That’s what matters.

Mayor’s final chance

Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words, or was it a Freudian slip? Either way, Mayor Bill de Blasio used a curious phrase in describing his planned meeting with federal prosecutors.
“This set of allegations just doesn’t comport with who I am,” he said on NY1. He said he will be “setting the record straight” on investigations into whether he created an illegal pay-to-play scheme.
A fair reading of the “set of allegations” phrase, along with what we know, suggests de Blasio is getting a last chance to convince the feds he shouldn’t face specific criminal charges.
If that’s the case, de Blasio is likely doomed. Such final meetings are routine as prosecutors make sure they haven’t missed important evidence that would gut the case later.
Legal arguments usually fail and political ones always do. New evidence is the only escape hatch.
Unless the mayor is holding an ace in the hole, he’d better be careful. Otherwise, he could talk himself into a perjury charge as well.

City tax bid hits home

You think your money is yours, but New York City Deputy Mayor Alicia Glen begs to differ.
City Hall wants a new “mansion tax” of 2.5 percent on any house sale above $2 million. Asked if she thought the tax might crimp sales, Glen told the Wall Street Journal the criticism is ridiculous and added, “If you look at how much money we’ve left on the table for the past two years while this thing went sideways, it makes me nuts.”
In other words, be grateful the city let you keep its money for two years. Now hand it over.

Word of trouble

Headline: “North African gangs attack Chinese migrants in Paris.”
Another great moment in globalism.