Skip to comments.This may be the time for that divorce
Posted on 11/18/2012 7:14:05 PM PST by campg
Given the results of recent national elections, it appears that the nation is split on a number of issues that neither side considers negotiable.
In May 2009, I wrote an article suggesting an amicable divorce between the two sides, with a partitioning of national assets between the two groups based on what was dear to each. It was a rhetorical device to outline the differences found in a split nation, and to make a larger point about ideology applied to everyday life.
Looking at the recent election, it may be time to revisit the idea.
The winners of the last election will get to keep the parts of America they like best. It seems only fair that the winners get to take the first cut.
Outside of a few states, Obamas America gets the large cities. Without question they get to keep Detroit, Buffalo, N.Y., Cincinnati, Cleveland, Miami, St. Louis, El Paso, Texas, Milwaukee, Philadelphia and Newark, N.J. None of these municipalities have had a conservative (let alone a Republican) administration for as long as anyone can remember. These are also, according to the Census Bureau, the cities with the highest poverty rates.
In Iowa, Obamas America also keeps the largest cities. As the last several elections have shown, they already own them. We get all the western rural counties; the eastern counties can choose to go either way.
Obamas America gets the Wall Street protesters, and we get Wall Street. They can keep the national-level media, and government unions. They obviously own them outright.
Well keep the "bitter clingers," those who hold onto their guns, Bibles and Judeo-Christian values. Obamas America can keep the god-of-the-week, and cars that run on soy grease and electricity and are generated from anything except coal and nuclear power.
We get the coal and nuclear power plants. We also get all the coal and oil fields along with the uranium deposits. Obamas America has no interest in these or doesnt want anything to do with them.
We get to keep the Constitution. Obamas America can have the "living document," along with political correctness, laws regulating "hate" speech, and the government protected right to sex without consequences that has magically morphed into a "womens issue."
We get to keep "the rich" and it is especially important that we retain the "older white males." These two groups pay the overwhelming share of taxes, and we would like to keep them. In fact, we will institute a yearly holiday, much like Veterans Day, when "the rich" and "older white males" are thanked for their service to the nation.
We will keep the scientists and artists who could survive without a government grant. Obamas America could keep schools that could not run without federal intervention.
As radical as this may sound to the other America, we are willing to give Obamas nation all federally controlled, protected, and financed health care. Our nation will do whatever we can to turn health care into a free market.
We will keep rights that are God-given. Obamas America can keep the rights granted by the government; the right to health care, of an education, to housing, and the right to whatever else that could win any given election.
We get to keep the part of the federal government that maintains the rule of law, and is prohibited from making transfer payments. Obamas America can have all the rest.
We will gladly trade Washington D.C. and New York for North and South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming.
Let everyone move to whatever nation they wish and then close the border.
What do you think the two nations would look like 20 years from now? Which one would be indistinguishable from any third-world country?
Do you think there would be a fence between them? Would the fence keep people out, or like North Korea and East Germany, would the fence be there to keep unhappy people from fleeing their centrally government-managed paradise?
How long do you think it would take before people tried to start up the same old gravy train? At the very least, there would have to be enshrined into law that government could not take from one to give to another, for any reason, even if that seems a “good” thing to do. Second, only net taxpayers would be allowed to vote.
The only charity would come from private, voluntary donations. How many Americans do you think would go for that? Not many, I’m afraid, because most people are ignorant of how freedom and the market produce real prosperity and help the poor the most.
One way to choose is to have enough states dissolve the present federal government, but the necessary Constitutional Convention scares too many people more than another four years of The Obama Regime does.
States could stop accepting federal money for any project. This will send bureaucrats into a tizzy. Moreover, states could stop giving the federal government blanket approval for acquisition of property. This would impose roadblocks to some expansions of the federal government. It would really send federal bureaucrats into a tizzy.
Consider the Enclave Clause, found in Article I, Section 8:
“Congress may exercise exclusive legislative “authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;”
What if states, wanting to object to encroachments on our liberties by the federal government, stopped automatically granting blanket consent, but instead required the federal government to apply for each parcel of land in question and to pay a processing fee, of say $1 million per application?
Or what if the States just treated the federal government like the feds treat people who attempt to register Class III firearms— that is they must pay the stamp tax, but the Treasury Department is not accepting any further payments?
Consider how this would be a tremendous thorn in the side of the feds.
We already did that experiment with Germany and Korea.
Look at the map of who voted which way by county, and you see how narrow is the Obama base of support, and how concentrated are the precincts are that permit voter fraud.
We already split up the country once-
Canada got the liberal policies. Now the liberals want the rest. No. They can’t have it.
I’ve jokingly told my wife maybe it’s time for a split, and she thought I was serious. I am semi-serious. It would be interesting to see something like that tried on an experimental basis just to show libs what life in a thoroughly socialist country would be like. The fact is the poorest 25% of Americans now, Blacks and Hispanics, would constitute 50% of the population in the socialist U.S. They are the segment of the current population with the highest numbers of people on government aid i.e. welfare and other “freebies” taken from the country’s taxpayers. We’d see how the few producers in the socialist U.S. would like having 90+ percent of their income taken from them.
I think people would be given a choice of which country they want to live in. I can't imagine all the people on gov. aid or all the snooty libs choosing a free-enterprise, constitutionally based U.S.
WALL THEM IN.
Unfortunately the takers will never split from the makers. Their right to mooch is the one and only thing they’ll fight for.
If those are the only people running, we don’t have a choice. Romney wasn’t much of a choice.
I am so ready for a divorce!
A serious divorce means secession And secession is at the state level. Cute rant though.