Do we get to call them socialists yet?
BadgerHawk on October 27, 2009 at 10:18 AM

National Socialist Democrat Party

You could watch the video. And this one too. And this one. Or maybe read Mish, zerohedge and market-ticker if you need more convincing that we live a filthy Banksta-owned Oligarchy (kleptocracy?) If Obama’s a socialist, then he’s doing it wrong.

This government is robbing the people blind in broad daylight. 23.7 Trillion of the people’s money in the pipeline for the Bankstas, dude. Sorry you missed it.

Rae on October 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Socialism is merely the piffle they sell to the masses to attain power. This demonstrated repeatedly in history. Whatever the label de lour, collectivists always revert to totalitarianism.

Whatever ism you want to asign it, authoritarians always gravitate to the money, and the rich always make a deal to protect themselves. The political class “in” then join their ranks and they mutually benefit. Be it within a declining over-all death-spiral or not for rest.

Until, “the motor of the world” collapses under its own weight, and stops.

What I think we are witnessing, as Twain stated-”History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme” i s the replay of the decline and fall of fall of Rome, ala-Gibbons. And now, as then, we are most probably in for a period of biblical “great gnashing of teeth” that will last centuries.

When the global cop of the era is no longer able or willing to maintain the order that allows commerce, science and culture to prosper. Everything hithero-to taken for granted comes to an end, and life returns to “being nasty, brutish and short.”

The last time of which we gave the moniker of “The Dark Ages”. Pessimistic I know, but the parallels are too many and all too real.

MarkTheGreat on October 27, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Both of you have some excellent points, let me address the one at a time.

Rebar/

1st, the legality issue, ie contract between states. Our last original progressive president (Wilson) had little difficulty in trotting out sedition laws for actions far less threatening thatn actual succession. The totalitarian impulse is at least as prevelent amonst the current crop of progressives as then.

2nd, I don’t find the north/south context as particularly relevent to todays red/blue state divide. Granted the southern states are traditionally more patriotic as well as martial. The south is waaaay over-represented in the military, which goes to some of Mark’s points as well.

But if you look at the electoral map, that is not how it breaks out today. I think that much of the ’08 map regrets their folly, and the ’04 map is probably a better representation. As you will notice, the split of the blue states with the divide being in red, is entirely not functional.

Another aspect is the middle is the breadbasket, especially now that the San Joquian (CA) valley has been decimated in favor of the delta smelt.

The progressives are mistaken in their ideology, but they are not absolute morons. They can see that such a situation is untenable.

Mark/

The indoctrination by our disfuntional ed-system may create more disunity amongst the ranks than you think, not overtly, but it is far from my time when in back in ’80s.
None the less it could not be effectively used against us either. Plus the fact that they are stationed far from home marginalizes any assist to successionists.

The real problem is the militarization of law enforcement over the last 30yrs or so. It is a libertarian’s worst nightmare! It has gotten so out of hand, that few would even beleive its extent. The military may be one thing, but the abuse of power by LE so engrained and so common-place that we no longer even bat a lash at it anymore. Which side LE comes down on, even despite “Oath-Keepers”, I am not so confident of.

If you doubt the severity of this situation, I highly reccommend you peruse this report from CATO:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476

The Nat’l Gaurd, despite being heavily populated by LE would break out better in our favor than the active-duty, that and the likely loyalty from Gov’s would help our cause. But a 5th column element may arise from LE in the ranks.

What ever happens it will not be a cake-walk, and should we descend into such chaos, our external foes may very well capitalize on it. I’d bet on it myself. Pro or Con succession, the peril to the nation is quite real which ever way it goes. It is a sad, sad day my friends.

MarkTheGreat on October 27, 2009 at 12:05 PM

That’s certainly debatable. FWIW, that was Paul Craig Roberts, who worked in Reagan’s treasury.

You could watch the video. And this one too. And this one. Or maybe read Mish, zerohedge and market-ticker if you need more convincing that we live a filthy Banksta-owned Oligarchy (kleptocracy?) If Obama’s a socialist, then he’s doing it wrong.

This government is robbing the people blind in broad daylight. 23.7 Trillion of the people’s money in the pipeline for the Bankstas, dude. Sorry you missed it.

I further state that it is my heartfelt belief that politicos right now are looking at non-politicians and maneuvering to make sure they never achieve a position to oppose their plans. Collecting oppo, slander, libel, making sure business opportunities do not occur–they play for keeps.

After all, how many conservatives are there now in academia? The major media? Exactly.

Our political class has got to learn that not everything they wish to do is something they can do.

Hold the line.

Why in hell am I subject to the idiocies conjured up by this cretinous little pervert?

NoDonkey on October 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM

Ask the voters in Frank’s district. I dunno that you’ll get a cogent answer here.

Just got up and already too agitated to type well.

I can’t help but think that major thinks are coming. It makes me fearful, but hopeful too. The silent majority is silent no more.

I am heartened by the Oath Keepers, who say they will not move against the citizens of this great nation to enforce unconstitutional mandates by these fascist thugs now in control.

Bit by bit they are gnawing away at freedom, individual rights, self-determination and our future as a free people.

It is happening right now, right before our eyes.

He said economic policy. Economic policy is basically decided on by the Fed, and we can see that Goldman Sachs and those associated with them seem to have a lot more say over what goes on than anyone else.

The whole economic policy is being run for a handful of super-rich people.”

Rae on October 27, 2009 at 11:32 AM

I’ve read some stupid things on this site, but this is quite clearly in the top 1% of stupid things.

So rich people secretly run the country. Have any evidence to support such a claim?

No, do not expect that they will be so willing to let us do what you propose. Such a break-away will be every bit as difficult as that of the founders from King George, and that was a mighty close run thing that very nearly never came to be.

Archimedes on October 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Back in 1776, the British had the world’s most powerfull army and navy. The colonies had their own guns, and experience in fighting indians.

Modern world. Most of the military bases are in the states most likely to seceed. Most members of the military have no love for the behemeth in Washington and especially for the man currently running it.
I suspect that most members of the military would either sit on their hands and refuse to fire on fellow Americans, or would join the secessionist movement. The number of active military who would fight on the behalf of Washington is small.

Beyond the active military, there is the National Guard.

The units in the secessionist states would fight on the behalf of their state. Of the remaining units, most red states, the units would stay out of the fighting. Blue states would fight on behalf of the federal govt. Problem, red states have bigger and better units.

If the Feds tried to nationalize the red state national guard units, a lot more states would quickly join the secessionist movement.

At present, much of the military is tied up over seas, and wouldn’t be available for a fight here in the homeland for weeks and months.

I look forward to input you might have as to how this may be accomplished.

Archimedes on October 27, 2009 at 11:20 AM

First, the left has convinced itself that it’s the blue states that are propping up the red states, so the political will to enforce the union is shaky. If the red states secede, many in the fascist intelligentsia would welcome it. Legally, the Constitution is a contract between the states, and by any measure the federal government has violated that contract, and for the last 70 years at least. Morally, America is split between those who wish to relinquish their rights to a fascist government, and those who wish to live free under the Constitution, a split is the “fair” solution. Finding the people who are willing to die to impose fascism on secessionist states is going to be a tough sell, considering.

Strategically, the dynamic between the North and South is exactly opposite from the first war between the states, the lion’s share of population, agriculture, and industry is in the South, moreover it will be the South fighting for freedom, the North fighting for slavery. Another fact is the federal military is almost 40% Texans, the majority from red states. The federal government’s monopoly of force will be cut in more than half instantly. The new “Republic of America” will have from the get-go a large and highly experienced military. Would 0bama or other fascist start a war on such unfavorable grounds? Doubtful.

With the federal government no longer bound by constitutional limits, secession is inevitable, but violence is not. Let the blue states have their fascism, as they go bankrupt and descend into 3rd world poverty, they can apply for statehood in the new America, under the pre-progressive Constitution and laws of course. Eventually all the states will either join us or join Canada.