Obama’s ‘change’ hits brick wall: Secession

Tue, 12/01/2009 - 4:26pm
By: Letters to the ...

I hoped Barack Obama would have used his background and ethnicity to inspire our inner city youth to success. I hoped he would have motivated all our youth to make good life choices that would cultivate inner pride, self-confidence, and a desire to create a successful life through hard work both in school and beyond.

Sadly, Barack Obama has chosen to instill a further sense of entitlement. He is convincing the poor that, in fact, they’ve not had an equality of opportunity. What he’s really doing through wealth redistribution is hamstringing the poor by once again denying them the opportunity to create the sense of self-worth and inner pride that they’ll need to move forward in life and achieve their dreams and desires.

Thinking people, people who think this through, people who take a world historic view, know that redistribution of wealth isn’t about helping those in need.

It’s about what it’s always been about: growing government, and creating centralized power and control.

This is the “change” Barack Obama was talking about when he ran for president. You can call it whatever you want: Socialism, Marxism, it doesn’t really matter. The fact is it’s not going to work in the United States, not even for a short while. I’ll tell you why.

In order for Barack Obama to achieve the depth of “change” he desires, he’s going to have to curtail our First and Second Amendment rights. He can’t do it by repealing these constitutional amendments, for that’s far too obvious, not to mention he doesn’t have the necessary Congressional support for such a bold move.

However, he will attempt to do it subtly and swiftly. That’s when I believe we will see a popular uprising of exception. We will see a movement of hopefully peaceful civil disobedience that begins small but grows rapidly, perhaps much like the sit-ins we observed during the Vietnam War era.

Additionally, we may witness a successful nationwide movement by way of individual state referendums of secession from the Union. Yes, you read that right, secession from the Union.

Ultimately, Barack Obama will be left standing alone as president of an empty shell. The country will by and large simply choose not to play his game.

I know this sounds like a great script for a “Twilight Zone” episode, and, yes, it sounds far-fetched, but I don’t know that it’s any more far-fetched than the immensely frightening scenario we are living out right now right before our very eyes.

When one looks squarely into the future and pits the oncoming decline and fall of our democracy, the result of which has created the freest, richest and most abundantly successful nation on earth, by most any measurable standard, against the scenario I’ve laid out before you, it becomes distinctly plausible, if not probable.

Marc Lugash

Peachtree City, Ga.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by PTC Observer on Sat, 12/05/2009 - 3:11pm.

Jefferson said, "If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation ... to a continuance in the union .... I have no hesitation in saying, 'Let us separate.'" This statement was made as the New England states were threatening to secede from the Union in Jefferson's first term. Driven primarily by Jefferson ill concieved trade embargo.

The right of the states to separate from the union was at one time one of the primary threats to a power hungry centralized government. It helped hold at bay out of control spending, graft and corruption that we see in our current federal government. This corruption was intensified following the Civil War as the Federal government began its great payoff at the expense of the Southern States.

After the Civil War the question of the rights of states to secession seemed to be resolved. However, even following this terrible conflict the Constitution was not changed to rule out states from separating from the union.

In last and most famous court case regarding secession the United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), that while the union was "perpetual" and that secession ordinances were "absolutely null," membership nevertheless could be revoked "through revolution, or through consent of the States." Consent of the States was not defined but one could presume that a majority of the states would need to "approve". Revolution speaks for itself.

The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the "self-determination" of "peoples," but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.

Preservation of individual liberty (life,freedom,and property) is the primary reason for our representative government. To forget this, condemns us to political slavery.

For more truth concerning secession read, "The Real Lincoln," by Thomas DiLorenzo. The Lincoln cult is debunked in this rare work of truth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.