I think even Alexander Hamilton (who wanted a elected monarchy that ruled for life) would shake his head in disbelief at what we today think is standard government behavior.
Most concerning of all is that the Supreme Court keeps twisting itself into a pretzel to avoid dealing with this doctrine which grew up under the same activist court that brought us Roe v Wade. They KNOW it will require reversal if they look at it. But they keep finding ways not to look at it. It's frustrating.
I don't advocate violence, but I think we've reached a point in history where we will either have a second revolution (which might turn out very badly) or a national divorce (which I think could turn out okay if we make it amicable). I still have "white pill" moments where I see flashes of hope, but for the most part...I don't know that there's a better way to create a more perfect "union" than to become disunified.
Dennis Prager already says (in a brilliant column) that there are two Americas. One is obviously the founders' vision, based on Divinely endowed rights (that's us).
The other is the Soros funded Alexandria Ocasio Cortez revisionist retribution culture - a return to the way things were before a society was founded on rights and responsibility.
Oh, the bridge across the Bering Strait. I was up there last summer - to Nome. It's only about 12 or 15 feet deep in most places.
But, yeah, I would forsee a coalition of Alaska, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire (maybe) and Texas. I don't think it'll be a geographic coalition. In this era with the Internet, why are we still organizing like they did back in the 18th century?
James Madison would have a duck fit!!!
I think even Alexander Hamilton (who wanted a elected monarchy that ruled for life) would shake his head in disbelief at what we today think is standard government behavior.
Most concerning of all is that the Supreme Court keeps twisting itself into a pretzel to avoid dealing with this doctrine which grew up under the same activist court that brought us Roe v Wade. They KNOW it will require reversal if they look at it. But they keep finding ways not to look at it. It's frustrating.
We’re getting ever closer to what we fought a Revolution to not be under. I think all of them would be in agreement.
I don't advocate violence, but I think we've reached a point in history where we will either have a second revolution (which might turn out very badly) or a national divorce (which I think could turn out okay if we make it amicable). I still have "white pill" moments where I see flashes of hope, but for the most part...I don't know that there's a better way to create a more perfect "union" than to become disunified.
Dennis Prager already says (in a brilliant column) that there are two Americas. One is obviously the founders' vision, based on Divinely endowed rights (that's us).
The other is the Soros funded Alexandria Ocasio Cortez revisionist retribution culture - a return to the way things were before a society was founded on rights and responsibility.
https://dennisprager.com/column/there-are-two-irreconcilable-americas
So... let's play out the scenario. I think you and I both hope for some sort of - if not divorce - court ordered separation.
Here I actually wrote a scenario about just such a separation:https://bobkirchman.substack.com/p/a-short-history-of-serial-fiction
You'll be pleased to know that Alaska becomes a more Libertarian State. Texas more so, Massachusetts not so much.
The creation of a real autonomous republic in Siberia allows for my favorite fantasy infrastructure project to be built.
I actually think it might be a real solution. Hopefully a bloodless one.
Oh, the bridge across the Bering Strait. I was up there last summer - to Nome. It's only about 12 or 15 feet deep in most places.
But, yeah, I would forsee a coalition of Alaska, Florida, Montana, New Hampshire (maybe) and Texas. I don't think it'll be a geographic coalition. In this era with the Internet, why are we still organizing like they did back in the 18th century?