Category Archives: Secession

Friday’s Follies for September 19, 2014

Posted on by

The Scottish Secession vote is over. The Secessionists lost—by 10 percentage points. That is significant. In my opinion, it was a wise choice.

We’re now seeing some of the demographics of the voters. In general, the older Scots voted to stay in the UK. The younger, twenty-somethings, steeped in European socialism, voted to secede. They point to the North Sea oil fields and those around the outer islands as sources of income. One problem they’ve overlooked…or more likely ignored, is that those North Sea oil fields are in international territory. Territory that is closer to Norway and in several areas, inside Norwegian sovereign territory.

Another oversight is just who will those ‘outer islands’ choose? Are they Scottish? Not necessarily. The British WW1 and WW2 naval base at Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands is one such example. While they have some Scottish ancestry, a hundred or more years as a Royal Naval base has diluted their loyalties from Scotland to the UK. Some if the smaller islands are closer to Ireland than Scotland. To whom would they align?

All open questions. And, fortunately, questions that will not need answers. At least, not at this time.

***

But the Scottish referendum, brings secession before the public, the American public. The result of discussions on that topic may be surprising to those in Washington. Reuters reports the 1 in 4, 25% of Americans would prefer to secede from the Federal government in Washington, DC.

Exclusive: Angry with Washington, 1 in 4 Americans open to secession

By Scott Malone, BOSTON Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:41am EDT

(Reuters) – The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.

Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.

The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.

Anger with President Barack Obama’s handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.

But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.

“I don’t think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done,” said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. “The state would be better off handling things on its own.”

Scottish separatists proclaim that the idea of independence will never die. A growing number of Americans are adopting that thought as well—independence from a tyrannical central government. To quote Roy Gustafson above, “The state(s) would be better off handling things on its (their) own.”

***

A week or more ago I asked the question, if Chad Taylor is unfit or incapable of holding the office of US Senator, would he not also be unfit or incapable of holding his office as Wichita District Attorney? It appears I’m not the only one asking that question.

Kansas court rules withdrawn Democratic Senate candidate incapable of serving

By Byron York | September 19, 2014 | 8:13 am

…

On Thursday, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of Taylor; he can withdraw and have his name taken off the ballot. The justices accepted Taylor’s argument that he meant to declare that he is incapable of serving:

We conclude the plain meaning of “pursuant to K.S.A. 25-306b(b)” contained in Taylor’s letter effectively declares he is incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected. Simply put, the phrase operates as an incorporation by reference of this particular requirement…

So Taylor is out. Coverage of the decision has focused on the conclusion that the removal of Taylor’s name from the ballot will help Orman and hurt Roberts’ chances of re-election. That’s of course the national significance of the decision. But in Kansas, questions will remain. Why did Democrats nominate a candidate who is incapable of serving? And just why is Taylor incapable? Also, Taylor is the district attorney of Shawnee County in Kansas. Is he capable of doing that job? And if he is, why is it that he is capable of serving as district attorney but incapable of serving as senator?

From the start of his campaign through the Aug. 5 Democratic primary (which he won with 53 percent of the vote), through the beginning of September, Taylor told voters he was the best choice to represent Kansas in the United States Senate. Then, overnight, he decided he was “incapable of fulfilling the duties of office if elected.” He owes the voters of Kansas an explanation of what happened.

I skipped most of the article and reproduced only the last few paragraphs. You can read the entire column here.

***

The NRSC and Karl Rove have come to the ‘pubs out here in flyover land with their hands out—for our money. They spent their money fighting us in the primary. Now it general election time and they are broke.

There’s an old adage that says, “What goes around, comes around.” You should have thought of that, Karl, before you betrayed the conservatives across the country to prop up your elitist buds in Washington.

No money for YOU!

The result of Rove’s and the NRSC’s tactics during the primaries this summer may have cost those Washington elitists control of the Senate.

Circle of Stupid: How the NRSC and Karl Rove Cost the GOP as Many as Five Senate Seats

posted at 7:23 am on November 7, 2010

The National Republican Senatorial Committee spent $3 million in the week before the election on the ill-fated campaign of Carly Fiorina, despite polling that showed her trailing by 9 points to the tiny Marxist Barbara Boxer (Fiorina ended up losing by… 9.8%).

In the mean time, Ken Buck lost by a tiny margin in Colorado; Nevada’s Sharron Angle lost by a similar narrow vote total, Dino Rossi was edged by Patty Murray in Washington, 27,000 votes swung the election against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and and Joe Miller is hanging by a thread in Alaska.

In Alaska, the final results may not be known for some time, but the NRSC’s final ads actually ended up helping Lisa Murkowski in her write-in campaign against GOP nominee Joe Miller. Instead of attacking Murkowski — the candidate who most threatened the party’s nominee — the NRSC instead took aim at Democrat Scott McAdams, who had no chance of winning. Any support they drove from McAdams was far more likely to go to Murkowski than to Miller — meaning the NRSC effort probably did more harm than good for Miller’s campaign.

In other words, the NRSC’s idiocy — combined with outrageous remarks by Karl Rove on national television — likely doomed four or five true conservative candidates to extinction.

In the post-election debrief, the Nixonian RINO contingent of Whimsy Graham, John Cornyn and the rest of the NRSC’s ludicrous cadre of losers blamed… staunch conservative Jim DeMint, who had funded a handful of Tea Party-backed Senatorial winners like Pat Toomey (PA), Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Lee (UT) and Ron Johnson (WI).

Oh, but that $8 million spent on Fiorina’s campaign didn’t hurt at all — right, boys?

I know one thing: that $3 million spent in the final weeks on those five campaigns could have swung four or five seats to the GOP. But the idiots at the NRSC are selfish, insular Beltway Republicans who are wedded to the status quo.

News flash, boys: we just stamped expiration dates on your foreheads.

You can read the entire column on Hot Air. What Karl Rove and the NRSC has sown, so will they reap.

 

Facebook

Different vision

Posted on by

It’s amazing how the libs and conservatives can see the same thing and interpret that ‘thing’ so differently. Wishful thinking? Partially. Self-deception? That, too. What are we talking about? The Iowa Senate race.

Yesterday, an article appeared on Drudge. The headline read, POLL SHOCK: Dems now have 51% chance of holding Senate. According to the Washington Post, the Iowa Senate race 'leans' left towards democrat candidate Bruce Braley. The article states that two weeks ago, Joni Ernst led Braley.

The Washington Post says,

* Iowa: Two weeks ago, the model gave state Sen. Joni Ernst (R) a 72 percent chance of winning. Today she has a 59 percent chance.

The Washington Post’s own poll has Joni Ernst leading Braley 59% to 41% and they say the state is ‘leaning’ left to Braley. FOXNews ran an article about the same Iowa race using another poll. Their poll, too, had Ernst well out in front by 6 percentage points. The astounding item in all this is that the Washington Post poll has Ernst further ahead than the FOXNews/Quinnipiac University poll. Both sides see the same fact, Joni Ernst is well out in front, and both sides report that fact oppositely.

I believe the dems are grasping at straws. It is common knowledge that the closer we approach the election, the tighter the races appear. To the dems, Ernst dropping from 72% to 59%, according to their poll, means Ernst is losing.

FOX just reports that Ernst continues to poll higher than Braley by 6%. That, my friends, is the difference between FOX and the Main Stream Media. The MSM filters all news through their bias, FOX just reports the facts as they are.

***

Have you heard about the new Form 4473? What is the Form 4473? It’s the form you must complete to buy a firearm through a federally licensed dealer. What has been changed? The new form requires the buyer to state his race and ethnicity. The Obama administration changed the form, quietly, without little fanfare—until it hit the dealers.

Obama administration forcing new gun buyers to declare race, ethnicity

ATF policy irks dealers, risks privacy intrusion, racial profiling: critics
By Kelly Riddell – The Washington Times – Tuesday, September 16, 2014

The Obama administration quietly has been forcing new gun buyers to declare their race and ethnicity, a policy change that critics say provides little law enforcement value while creating the risk of privacy intrusions and racial profiling.

With little fanfare, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in 2012 amended its Form 4473 — the transactional record the government requires gun purchasers and sellers to fill out when buying a firearm — to identify buyers as either Hispanic, Latino or not. Then a buyer must check his or her race: Indian, Asian, black, Pacific Islander or white.

The amendment is causing a headache for gun retailers, as each box needs to be checked off or else it’s an ATF violation — severe enough for the government to shut a business down. Many times people skip over the Hispanic/Latino box and only check their race, or vice versa — both of which are federal errors that can be held against the dealer.

Requiring the race and ethnic information of gun buyers is not required by federal law and provides little law enforcement value, legal experts say. And gun industry officials worry about how the information is being used and whether it constitutes an unnecessary intrusion on privacy.

“This issue concerns me deeply because, first, it’s offensive, and, secondly, there’s no need for it,” said Evan Nappen, a private practice firearms lawyer in New Jersey. “If there’s no need for an amendment, then there’s usually a political reason for the change. What this indicates is it was done for political reasons, not law enforcement reasons.”

ATF said the change came about because it needed to update its forms to comply with an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reporting standard put into effect during the Clinton administration. The ATF declined to comment on why race and ethnicity information are needed in the first place or what they are used for. On its prior 4473 forms, the bureau had been collecting race data.

The BATFE is blaming Bill Clinton for this change. It’s strange that for eight years of the Bush Administration and four years of the Obama Administration, the BATFE saw no need to change the Form 4473. I don’t believe their excuse.

“OMB’s race and ethnicity standards require agencies to ask both race and ethnicity in a specific manner (as done on [Form 4473]), and agencies may not ask for one without asking for the other,” wrote Elizabeth Gosselin, a spokeswoman for the ATF, in an emailed response to The Washington Times. She did not say why the agency suddenly made the change in response to a rule that was more than a decade old.

For ATF to ask for a purchaser’s race and ethnicity is not specifically authorized under federal statute, and since a government-issued photo ID — like a driver’s license — and a background check are already required by law to purchase a gun, the ethnicity/race boxes aren’t there for identification reasons, Mr. Nappen said.

“There is nothing [in ATF or OMB’s website links addressing the change in policy] that supports the requirement that ATF collect race-based information. The OMB guidance merely describes what categories of race should look like if information is collected,” Laura Murphy, the American Civil Liberties Union director for legislative affairs in Washington, said in an emailed statement.

In addition, Mrs. Murphy notes, the OMB guidance was supposed to be implemented by 2003; there’s no information given why ATF decided to make this change almost a decade later, she said.

“If there is a civil rights enforcement reason for the ATF to collect this data, I have not heard that explanation from ATF or any other federal agency,” said Mrs. Murphy.

Both the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza — the nation’s largest national Hispanic civil rights group — declined comment. — The Washington Times. 

The column continues at the Washington Times website. You can read the entire column here.

There is no justification, nor federal requirement for Obama to collect this information. Why are they? What purpose does it server? Perhaps, just to intimidate those who want to buy a weapon.

***

If you like single-malt Scots whisky, you may see prices going up if Scotland votes to secede from the United Kingdom.

Scottish Secession a Sobering Prospect for Scotch Whiskey Drinkers

Sep 16, 2014, 1:41 PM ET, By

Scotch drinkers might want to brace themselves if Scots vote to secede from the United Kingdom and, consequently, the European Union Thursday.

Among the likely outcomes would be higher prices for Americans and others who import the brown elixir from secession saddled producers with rising costs.

Scotch whiskey, commonly referred to as Scotch and spelled without the “e” in Great Britain, is a tightly regulated spirit that can only come from oak casks that have matured for at least three years in Scotland. Exports are a giant piece of business for the Scotch industry, which says it ships 40 bottles overseas each second, while Scotch accounts for a quarter of U.K.’s food and drink exports.

The prospect of a Scotch trade interruption alone is enough to rattle the industry.

David Frost, the chief executive of the Scotch Whisky Association in Edinburgh, said “any regulatory divergence between Scotland and the rest of the U.K. may increase costs to business,” according to his group’s annual review in May.

And Frost isn’t just bluffing. In the European Union, Scotch producers can export the stuff tariff-free to the region, and the geographical indication of “Scotch Whisky” is protected by E.U. law. Only 109 distilleries are licensed to produce Scotch, according to the association.

“But even a temporary interruption of E.U. membership involving exclusion from the single market or the customs union, if this were a consequence of independence, would be damaging and difficult to manage,” Frost wrote in the annual review.

I guess all you Scotch drinkers will have to switch to Bourbon.

Facebook

Evolution, revolution, devolution

Posted on by

How many of you have been watching the foreign news? Are you aware that the United Kingdom may soon be no more? Have you read the news about the upcoming Scottish Secession vote?

No? Then you probably get your news from broadcast media and the MSM.

The UK is about to fragment. Socialist around the world are applauding. British companies are anticipating the secession—by moving their assets and headquarters south. It is a disaster in the making and if the session is successful, Scotland will soon become bankrupt.

You see, the leaders of the SNP, the Scottish National Party, are socialists. They’re unhappy the UK government won’t dish out more bennies to Scotland. The truth of the matter is that the UK is about broke, too.

The secessionists are selling Scotland a pipe-dream. With independence, they declare, all will be well and Scotland will become Heaven-on-Earth. In reality, Scotland doesn’t have the income to support its existing welfare state. The UK has been propping them up and with secession, the slightly deeper pockets from the UK will be missing.

I’m very interested in the vote. My grandfather was born in Scotland. My father was born on the Scottish southern border. I admire the Scottish culture—except for the urban socialist infestation.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/The_Battle_of_Culloden.jpg/1280px-The_Battle_of_Culloden.jpg

An incident in the rebellion of 1746, by David Morier

The United Kingdom was created through war. The last major battle was at Culloden in 1746. The Clearances followed and many Scots fled to the New World. Yes, there is a history of animosity between the Scots and the English. At one point in their common history, Scots were forbidden to wear Tartans and kilts.

An independent Scotland will soon be a pauper. Deeply in debt, saddled with a weak economy, it will become a burden on their neighbors. If the vote is for secession, I would expect another vote in the future for reunion.

***

I looked at the Drudge Report this morning and almost lost my breakfast. Who did I see? The Clintons. Two frauds attempting more fraud. Both are infamous for two quotes. Bill: “Put some ice on it.” Hillary: “What difference does it make?”

Bill is history…a bad history for us and for Hillary. But her history isn’t any better. The difference is that Hillary supporters have been better at keeping her history hidden that Bill’s supporters were. Ed Morrissey, writing at Hot Air, has the story.

Clinton insiders screened Benghazi documents before ARB probe, official says

posted at 9:21 am on September 15, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Just how unfettered was that “unfettered access” promised by the State Department to the Accountability Review Board in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack two years ago? According to one of the four officials punished and then cleared by State for the failures that led to the death of four men, a weekend housecleaning operation kept the ARB from seeing some of the most explosive documentation related to the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens. Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell told Sharyl Attkisson that the operation was supervised by advisers within Hillary Clinton’s inner circle, in this Daily Signal exclusive:

As the House Select Committee on Benghazi prepares for its first hearing this week, a former State Department diplomat is coming forward with a startling allegation: Hillary Clinton confidants were part of an operation to “separate” damaging documents before they were turned over to the Accountability Review Board investigating security lapses surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya.

According to former Deputy Assistant Secretary Raymond Maxwell, the after-hours session took place over a weekend in a basement operations-type center at State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C. This is the first time Maxwell has publicly come forward with the story. …

When he arrived, Maxwell says he observed boxes and stacks of documents. He says a State Department office director, whom Maxwell described as close to Clinton’s top advisers, was there. Though the office director technically worked for him, Maxwell says he wasn’t consulted about her weekend assignment.

“She told me, ‘Ray, we are to go through these stacks and pull out anything that might put anybody in the [Near Eastern Affairs] front office or the seventh floor in a bad light,’” says Maxwell. He says “seventh floor” was State Department shorthand for then-Secretary of State Clinton and her principal advisors.

“I asked her, ‘But isn’t that unethical?’ She responded, ‘Ray, those are our orders.’ ”

Not long afterward, two people high up the State Department chain arrived to check on the operation. Attkisson describes them as “close confidants” of Hillary Clinton, probably from Maxwell’s own description, although neither are named in Attkisson’s report. Maxwell says that both of them accompanied him into another office with a fourth person, where they personally vetted more documents:

Maxwell says after those two officials arrived, he, the office director and an intern moved into a small office where they looked through some papers. Maxwell says his stack included pre-attack telegrams and cables between the U.S. embassy in Tripoli and State Department headquarters. After a short time, Maxwell says he decided to leave.

“I didn’t feel good about it,” he said.

Don’t expect that this will disappear as quietly. Maxwell says that members of the select House committee on Benghazi have already deposed him on this weekend filing session, including both chair Trey Gowdy and Rep. Jason Chaffetz. Chaffetz told Attkisson that he is “100% confident the Benghazi Select Committee is going to dive deep on that issue.”

The ARB has insisted all along that they conducted a thorough and independent probe, a claim at which Maxwell scoffs on both counts in Attkisson’s report. This could let them off the hook, though. If State conspired to hide evidence from them, it will give the ARB an opening to withdraw their report — which would be a PR move entirely, since the ARB had no authoritative status otherwise — and give Congress even more validation for pursuing this in select-committee form. If Maxwell testifies to this in open session and the BSC finds one or more corroborating witnesses, it will put this right back front and center. And we may still yet hear from the unnamed advisers, too, as to what their orders were, and who gave them.

Just go away, Hillary. Take Bill with you.

Facebook

Friday Follies for October 11, 2013

Posted on by

The Shutdown continues. The Washington GOP leadership is quaking in its collective boots. Boehner and his pet House buds went to the White House yesterday with a debt limit deal—give Obama everything he wants for two or three months. Obama, apparently told Boehner that only acceptable solution, to Obama, was complete GOP surrender on everything. No debt limit deal.

Now, Boehner has no idea what to do next. Obama will invite Senate ‘Pubs in for a meeting. He expects McConnell to kow-tow like he expected Boehner to do. Will McConnell? Perhaps. But he has no power either. All spending bills—budgets, fund allocations, debt limit increases, must originate in the House. All the Senate ‘Pubs can do is to cheer them on, like Cruz and Lee have been doing—cheering for change, cheering to defund Obamacare. On those issues, McConnell could not care less.

But, outside the beltway, people—voters, are watching and they don’t like what they see. They are seeing a complete power grab by Obama and Reid. They don’t like it. Neither do they like the aimless, wishy-washy, sometime leadership by the House GOP. Boehner is completely ineffectual as a leader. Given his preference, he’d rather just cave than actually put up a fight. A leader and a fighter, Boehner is  not.

Scanning the internet headlines this morning, I found these three articles. All speak to change coming to the GOP, to politics-as-usual, to the country.

Third Party Sentiment Grows

Gallap conduct a nation-wide telephone poll last week of 1,000 voting age adults. No one party was selected over the other. Sixty percent of the respondent said a 3rd party was need, neither party was responsive to their voters.

In U.S., Perceived Need for Third Party Reaches New High

Twenty-six percent believe Democratic and Republican parties do adequate job

by Jeffrey M. Jones, October 11, 2013.

This article is part of an ongoing series analyzing how the government shutdown and the debate over raising the debt ceiling are affecting Americans’ views of government, government leaders, political parties, the economy, and the country in general.

PRINCETON, NJ — Amid the government shutdown, 60% of Americans say the Democratic and Republicans parties do such a poor job of representing the American people that a third major party is needed. That is the highest Gallup has measured in the 10-year history of this question. A new low of 26% believe the two major parties adequately represent Americans.

Trend: Perceived Need for a Third Major U.S. Political Party

The results are consistent with Gallup’s finding of more negative opinions of both parties since the shutdown began, including a new low favorable rating for the Republican Party, and Americans’ widespread dissatisfaction with the way the nation is being governed.

The prior highs in perceived need for a third party came in August 2010, shortly before that year’s midterm elections, when Americans were dissatisfied with government and the Tea Party movement was emerging as a political force; and in 2007, when the newly elected Democratic congressional majority was clashing with then-President George W. Bush.

A majority of Americans have typically favored a third party in response to this question. Notably, support has dropped below the majority level in the last two presidential election years in which Gallup asked the question, 2012 and 2008. Support for a third party was lowest in 2003, the first year Gallup asked the question. That year, 40% thought the U.S. needed a third party, while 56% believed the Republicans and Democrats were doing an adequate job.

The article continues with the statement that democrats and republicans equally felt the need for a new party(s). When voters from both sides feel the same way, the leadership of both parties need to heed the news.

Red State Secession

Pat Buchanan has a column out at the WND website. Like most of Buchanan’s writings, he wanders around the world for half the column until getting to the point. He may be slow getting to that point but when he does, he is accurate.

Is red state America seceding?

Pat Buchanan covers many movements across U.S. to divorce from urban rulers

In the last decade of the 20th century, as the Soviet Empire disintegrated, so, too, did that prison house of nations, the USSR.

Out of the decomposing carcass came Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Moldova, all in Europe; Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus; and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in Central Asia.

Transnistria then broke free of Moldova, and Abkhazia and South Ossetia fought free of Georgia.

Yugoslavia dissolved far more violently into the nations of Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo.

The Slovaks seceded from Czechoslovakia. Yet a Europe that plunged straight to war after the last breakup of Czechoslovakia in 1938 and 1939 this time only yawned. Let them go, all agreed.

The spirit of secession, the desire of peoples to sever ties to nations to which they have belonged for generations, sometimes for centuries, and to seek out their own kind, is a spreading phenomenon.

…

What are the forces pulling nations apart? Ethnicity, culture, history and language – but now also economics. And separatist and secessionist movements are cropping up here in the United States.

While many red state Americans are moving away from blue state America, seeking kindred souls among whom to live, those who love where they live but not those who rule them are seeking to secede.

The five counties of western Maryland – Garrett, Allegany, Washington, Frederick and Carroll, which have more in common with West Virginia and wish to be rid of Baltimore and free of Annapolis, are talking secession.

The issues driving secession in Maryland are gun control, high taxes, energy policy, homosexual marriage and immigration.

Scott Strzelczyk, who lives in the town of Windsor in Carroll County and leads the Western Maryland Initiative, argues: “If you have a long list of grievances, and it’s been going on for decades, and you can’t get it resolved, ultimately [secession] is what you have to do.”

And there is precedent. Four of our 50 states – Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, West Virginia – were born out of other states.

Ten northern counties of Colorado are this November holding non-binding referenda to prepare a future secession from Denver and the creation of America’s 51st state.

Nine of the 10 Colorado counties talking secession and a new state, writes Reid Wilson of the Washington Post – Cheyenne, Kit Carson, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld and Yuma – all gave more than 62 percent of their votes to Mitt Romney. Five of these 10 counties gave Romney more than 75 percent of their vote.

Their issues with the Denver legislature: A new gun control law that triggered a voter recall of two Democratic state senators, state restrictions on oil exploration and the Colorado legislature’s party-line vote in support of gay marriage.

…

If America does not get its fiscal house in order, and another Great Recession hits or our elites dragoon us into another imperial war, we will likely hear more of such talk.

Talk of secession has been around since the founding of the nation. Legally, it was settled by the Civil War—once a member of the union, the United States, always a member. No breakaway allowed.

That hasn’t stopped the talk, however. When the federal government and its leader(s) actively ignore, conspire to ignore, and violate the law and the Constitution, the illegality of secession loses meaning.

The South lost the Civil War for a number of reasons—lack of population, lack of industry, lack of capital and lack of allies…the South was outnumbered, out produced, outspent, and alone. The conditions today, are not the same. If the central government falls into turmoil and disarray, breakaways may succeed…for awhile.

Take that! You establishment buzzards!

Ann Coulter has a new book out, one written in her usual sharp and biting tongue. This time she’s aiming at the ‘Pub establishment, not the dems. The subject is a change for her. She has a reputation for being a GOP establishment shill—most of the income to her consulting company, comes from the GOP establishment. She won’t be winning new customers with this book unless it is from the Tea Party or the dems.

New Ann Coulter book rages at GOP with ‘change or die’ theme

By PAUL BEDARD | OCTOBER 11, 2013 AT 10:38 AM

Best-selling conservative author Ann Coulter, who has used her nine books to launch vicious attacks on Democrats, is turning her guns on Republicans in a new book out Monday, calling Florida Sen. Marco Rubio a hypocrite, urging donors freeze contributions to the GOP, and demanding that only governors or senators run for the party’s presidential nomination.

Her point in “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 — Especially a Republican” is to shake the party out of its doldrums in time for the 2014 and 2016 elections.

“Elections matter. We’re trying to make the country a better place. But if our candidates don’t win, we can’t do that,” she writes. “This isn’t a game. We aren’t picking basketball brackets. Bad things happen when Republicans lose elections and Democrats have veto-proof majorities,” she adds in the book provided in advance to Secrets.

While she is most noted for skewering liberals in her weekly columns and nine previous New York Times best sellers, “Never Trust” puts her on a path for a head-on collision with the establishment Republican Party and even a favored 2016 presidential candidate as she urges the GOP to purge itself of failed tactics, lazy consultants, and gripless potential candidates.

Take Rubio. He is one of the party’s leading 2016 candidates, but Coulter dresses him down for promising effective immigration reform while campaigning for the Senate but spitting out a more liberal alternative once elected.

She quotes him slamming amnesty for illegal immigrants as a Senate candidate in 2010. “And then he got to Washington and his big legislative initiative was a path to citizenship for illegal aliens! Yes, Rubio’s plan to solve the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico is to bring them all here,” she scolds.

The fashionable pundit pummels the party for wooing untested politicians for president. “Why are any congressmen or businessmen showing up in our presidential primaries? They are never going to get the nomination,” she says.

The solution is a governor, just like four of the last six presidents. “I don’t care if it makes you feel good, conservatives: Do not ever, ever considering running a presidential candidate who has not been a senator or preferably a governor. No, not even our beloved Ben Carson. What are we concentrating on? That’s right: winning.”

What Coulter overlooks at this point is that our last two Presidential candidates met Coulter’s criteria. McCain was a US Senator and Romney was a Governor. Neither worked well for us.

And to grab that gold ring, she demands that musty political consultants be swept out of the GOP. She blames them for losing four Senate seats the Republicans thought they should have won in 2010 and 2012.

“Republicans were screwed by campaign consultants fleecing deep-pocketed candidates rather than doing the work of electing Republicans,” she says. “Republicans should refuse to give money to the party until we have the names of these people [failed consultants] and a blood oath that they will never be hired again.”

Coulter takes shots at Tod Akin and Marco Rubio alike. I didn’t vote for Akin in the Primary, I backed another. But, after he won that primary election, I backed him. Akin lost, not so much for what he said, but because his party turned on him and caused his campaign more damage than his opponent, Claire McCaskill.

Akin was betrayed by his party. The dems, if that had happened to one of their candidates, would have closed ranks and rallied around him. That, too, is another failing of the GOP.

 Change is coming. It is coming to the GOP, to the central government, for better or more likely worse, and to the nation. Hiding from these trends, ignoring them, will not prevent those trends nor the coming events. The days of the ostrich response is over. The time to prepare, for any or all the scenarios, has come.

Facebook