April 17, 2009
Seeds of Discontent
While "public" opinion polls published by the media show broad public support for President Obama's political agenda and the American press has continued to give him and Congress fawning coverage, a wave of disgust with Washington seems to be growing across the country.
Montana's governor just signed a law that exempts firearms manufactured in the state for residents from federal regulations.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation, adding firepower to a battery of legislative efforts to assert states' rights across the nation."It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," Democrat Schweitzer said.
Texas Governor Rick Perry affirmed Texas' sovereignty last week, and then created an uproar when he hinted the possibility of secession:
We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that.
Today, Rasmussen released a jolting poll that just 75% percent of Texans would opt to remain in the United States. It would be good to know if the 25% that feel otherwise is a number that has increased, decreased, or remained the same, but that simply isn't the kind of poll that gets asked anywhere often enough to determine a trend.
Mirroring a Congress that passed a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill without reading it, the Georgia Senate passed a bill affirming states rights and rather stupidly pronounced a right to secede over inconsequential, trivial matters.
Montana, Texas and Georgia are not alone in their disgust, as 30-percent of state legislatures are in some stage of debate over resolutions challenging a power-hungry federal government.
This pushback against federal authority comes at a time when it was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security released a document that painted those who disagree with the left-wing bent of the current federal government as "right wing extremists." This overly-broad threat assessment painted a significant number of Americans as potential domestic terrorists for sharing one or more mainstream conservative values. The story broke just one day before hundreds of grass-roots protests involving more than a quarter-million Americans took place against excessive government spending in what were promoted as non-partisan TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. This report was sent to police agencies nationwide, much to the disgust of the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), and over the objections of the DHS Civil Rights officials as well.
It is perfectly normal for a political party out of power to feel disenfranchised, and the wailing drama of the minority can indeed be both obscene and absurd as we've noted abundantly during recent years.
But there is something deeper and far more disturbing about the present simmering distrust between American citizens and a federal government that seems to desire to be rulers instead of leaders.
It isn't just partisan sniping directed at one party's politicians by the opposition, but a questioning of the competencies and motivations of the federal agencies under their control. In addition to doubts about the federal government, their is an open disgust and mutual animosity developing between the pundit and media classes and the citizenry. Journalists, editors, and publishers that are supposed to be government watchdogs have long ago debased themselves into being nothing more than partisan cheeerleaders, and have now descended to the point of making contemptuous and crude sex jokes at the expense of citizens, or flat out suggesting they have a mental disorder if the have political beliefs that diverge from their own.
Historically, Americans have found ways to resolve or at least contain even the most polarized beliefs. We've had one bloodless transfer of elected power after another to the point that only twice—the Civil War and the Wilmington, NC coup d'état—has insurrection been a significant threat (the Civil War is obviously notable the size and scope of it's insurrection; the Wilmington Insurrection was notable for being the only successful coup against a lawfully elected government on American soil, and because it was possible because of a fusion between Klansmen, the state Democratic Party, and the most powerful newspaper in the state, the still existing and still reliably Democratic Raleigh, NC News & Observer).
Thankfully, not having the kind of significant political strife that threatens to undermine the core of our political system has simply become expected. That faith we have in our political systems and the checks and balances contained within have served this country well, but those systems are not perfect nor permanent.
Odds are that the current situation will diffuse peaceably of its own volition. The states and federal government will likely learn to accommodate each other without a constitutional crisis, and market conditions will either put an end to overtly biased news companies or see them marginalized.
But there is a chance, a very slim chance, that those in power have developed too great of a sense of their self-worth, and it is that troublesome DC-centric self-importance that has caused state governors and legislatures of both parties to sound a warning rattle.
Young or old, Democratic, Republican, or politically apathetic, we love our freedom in America. we will not cede it to tyrants, be they foreign potentates or self-aggrandizing homegrown snobs that think they know better than you do how to live your life.
Let us hope that once again words will be enough, and that the cautionary, months-long run on firearms and ammunition is just an over-reaction, and not a precursor.
Why put quotes around the word public when talking about polls that show overwhelming support for the administrations policies, and then go right ahead and quote the "jolting" poll showing 75% of Texans are dead set against secession? What makes that poll result telling while the others are suspect?
I think they are both saying the same thing, Obama is quite popular except for a very small minority of citizens who hold to some pretty silly viewpoints.
More importantly, why should this administration, or any administration, change it's priorities to try and placate a 20%-30% minority view? Obama has majority support from Democrats, and majority support from independents. That's a majority of voters and the base that elected him. It's not his job to try and appease a minority that didn't vote for him, it's his job to do the will of the majority who elected him.
I thought it was kind of amusing that on the one hand you say 'or flat out suggesting they have a mental disorder if the have political beliefs that diverge from their own'
While having this comment in the header of your page:
"Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state"
I've no doubt if I bothered to read your prior comments your epiphany is recent.
Okay I bothered...I was right. LOL
It fascinates me that these lefties are the most hypocritical, stupid, blind nit-wits I've ever seen or heard. They act like middle school kids, all the while thinking that they are so intelligent. Sad thing is...53,000,000 other nit wits voted for the main nit-wit.
Posted by: ironeagle at April 17, 2009 08:53 PM"But there is something deeper and far more disturbing about the present simmering distrust between American citizens and a federal government that seems to desire to be rulers instead of leaders."
Bang on, Bob.
Posted by: Bill Smith at April 17, 2009 09:08 PMVery persuasive argument you've made there ironeagle. Flawless.
I take issue with the concept that succession is "silly". The poll results do indicate that people are beginning to consider the fact that we would be better off with a split government. You must consider who the 25% are that want a reasonable, limited government. Are they nut cases or are they the marginalized hard working people that just happen to make money and fund the other 50% of the country. If they are the latter then we are in for a revolution for sure. This is one I think is long over due. I know that living in the South I am hearing much more about a change and not the type that Obama wants.
Posted by: david at April 19, 2009 05:52 PMExcellent post. Superb.
Posted by: cmblake6 at April 19, 2009 08:57 PMExcellent post. Superb.
And do you have any idea how badly this spam warning thing is getting?
Our situation today would be close to the situation before Shay's Rebellion in 1786 where the taxing of farmers during a depression was causing farmers to lose their land in debtor courts. The farmers tried petitioning the government as we have via the Tea Parties; then they occupied the courts. They were ignored and eventually took up arms against the state government and were defeated.
I suggest that if the tea parties fail, and so far it appears they have not influenced congress, then following MLK's lead, we should start picketing those politicians' local offices who have voted to spend us into ruination. If that doesn't work, sit-ins at their local offices will be required. Hopefully congress is more astute than was the Massachusetts government in Shays time or Southern Democrats were during the civil rights movement.
We 60 something retirees have the time, even to spend in jail if necessary, and should have the motivation to save our children and grandchildren from economic rumination and a loss of their freedoms. The Greatest Generation saved our nation from Fascism so we owe future generations a serious effort to return to the economic and personal freedom they fought so bravely to retain. As I expected I have convinced few people of the necessity of such actions; therefore I may have to go it alone.
Posted by: Al Reasin at April 20, 2009 07:24 AMDavid, you said "I take issue with the concept that succession is "silly". The poll results do indicate that people are beginning to consider the fact that we would be better off with a split government. You must consider who the 25% are that want a reasonable, limited government. Are they nut cases or are they the marginalized hard working people that just happen to make money and fund the other 50% of the country. If they are the latter then we are in for a revolution for sure. This is one I think is long over due."
From what I've seen of rallies like the tea parties they are not full of people who earn in the top 5%, they are full of middle class people who pay less Federal taxes now than they did under Reagan and the Bushes. That top 5%, the ones who would pay more taxes under Obama than under Bush would still pay less than they did under Reagan. So where was the revolt then?
What is silly about secession is the idea that if a state like Texas went out on it's own, suddenly by some magic it wouldn't have to pay for roads, schools, police, it's own army, etc. That takes tax money. Texas just about breaks even in terms of federal tax money out, and federal spending in Texas, so without the Feds you're looking at the same bills to pay from the same tax base. Assuming of course that Texas could raise it's own army, boarder patrol, DEA, FBI, etc...
And that 25% who wanted secession and "limited government" - whatever that means, what gets cut? - would have to deal with the 75% who was happy with the way things were. Try ruling 75% of of the people with 25%, then you'll see what revolution really is! :)
Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 03:12 PMRepeal the 17th!! It would be a death-blow to federal over-reaching.
Posted by: smarty at April 20, 2009 03:49 PMJim,
The circumstances that we have now are very similar to those of the 1850's. I am sure that if Texas went off on its own that it would do very well. But I doubt they would be alone for long. In short oder would follow, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc. I short there are a considerable number of people who are sick of the government and see no alternative but to start over.
The circumstances now are completely different than the 1850s, unless you're thinking that 75% of the white south was against secession prior to the Civil War.
LA, MS, GA, AL, etc are some of the biggest beneficiaries of Federal tax dollars, they get much more coming in than they send out. Secession, ignoring the additional costs of standoff/conflict with the USA, would bankrupt most of the red states, it's a non-starter.
As for just Texas, for a start, where would you find the money to police the Texas boarder, which would now include every inch of the state, not just the boarder with Mexico. Taxes.
And again, you're ignoring the 75% who want no part of the deal, they kinda count.
Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 07:07 PMJust to add some numbers here's what those states get back from the Feds for every $1 they pay in Federal taxes:
TX .94
La 1.45
MS 1.77
AL 1.71
GA .96
AR 1.47
FL 1.02
SC 1.38
Think about what those numbers mean. If, for example, MS taxed their citizens at the current Federal level, they'd be able to provide about half the local services. Pretending there would be no costs associated with things like making an FAA, FBI, DEA, etc from scratch, just paying for the current level of goods and services would require raising taxes above current levels for a new Confederacy. Now that's a recipe for revolt.
Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 07:29 PMHere's the link for those numbers, look at the states that are paying verses those taking, it's pretty much Blue pay, Red take. Revolt all you want, you'll be getting a worse deal.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg
Posted by: Jim at April 20, 2009 07:31 PMHey Jim -
So I have "Silly" viewpoints because I don't agree with Ubumma? Are you writing reports for Homeland Security too?
Posted by: Mikey J at April 21, 2009 01:43 PMHey Jim -
So my viewpoints are "silly" because I don't agree with Ubumma's views? Do you also write reports for Homeland Security?
Posted by: Michael Smith at April 21, 2009 01:45 PMHey Jim -
So my viewpoints are "silly" because I don't agree with Ubumma's views? Do you reailize how "silly" your statement is? Do you also write reports for Homeland Security?
Posted by: Mikey J at April 21, 2009 01:47 PMSo Jim -
My viewpoints are "silly" because I don't agree with Ubumma? Do you also write reports for Homeland Security?
Posted by: Mikey J at April 21, 2009 01:49 PMWell Mike, I don't know you personally, but seeing your work here, four nearly identical posts all with the ridiculous misspelling of the Presidents name, I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes, I do suspect you hold a number of silly viewpoints.
There are about 40% of the people in the USA who don't agree with Obama, and only about 20% who are silly enough to talk nonsense like secession over their Reagan era sized tax bills. Only you can say for certain which 20% you're in, but again, the Ubumma is a pretty big hint. :)
Posted by: Jim at April 22, 2009 12:35 AM
