Alexander's Column

Mapping the Right Road Forward

Big Problems Require Big Solutions

By Mark Alexander · Nov. 15, 2012
“[T]he crisis is arrived when we must assert our rights, or submit to every imposition, that can be heaped upon us, till custom and use shall make us as tame and abject slaves.” –George Washington (1774)

I’ve heard that fruit doesn’t fall far from its tree, and have often found that to be true. A bright young Patriot, who also happens to be my high-school daughter, demonstrated this principle just yesterday.

In a post-election summary to our fellow Patriots last week, I included images of election maps that exposed some facts Obama and his Leftist cadres don’t want you to contemplate.

Chief among those facts are that the assault on Liberty we witnessed in the presidential election was led, as in 2008, primarily by urban dwellers, most of whom reside on “government welfare plantations,” and subsist on the spoils of what Obama calls “redistributive justice.” That collectivist constituency now accounts for almost 50 (FIFTY) percent of Obama’s voter base. Socialist Democrats have mastered the practice of co-opting (read: “buying”) their allegiance and getting them to the polls. The good news is that about nine million fewer Obama voters showed up in 2012.

The county-by-county election maps clearly revealed the geographical delineation between the Left-leaning urban centers and the Right-leaning rest of the nation. Naturally, I observed that this delineation formed reasonable lines for secession, and I recalled these words from fellow Tennessean Nathan Bedford Forrest on the Second War for Independence (as it was known in the South): “I loved the old government. I loved the old Constitution. I do not hate it; I am opposing now only the radical revolutionists who are trying to destroy it.”

So, you ask, what does this have to do with fruit trees?

My daughter walked into my home study (affectionately called “The Man Cave” around our house), and she was sporting one of those expressions that conveyed she was on a mission. She asked, “Can I sign a petition for our state to secede?”

Apparently, as you may have heard, some despondent souls across the nation, still licking their wounds after Obama’s re-election, are preparing to surrender the future of the Republic. They have launched official secession petitions from all 50 states on the most illogical of places to undertake such folly – Obama’s White House “We the People” page for online petitions, which promises a response from the president to every petition that gathers more than 25,000 signatures.

Those petitions are closing in on a million signatures.

My daughter got wind of this, and she’s now ready to grab her M-4 and a case of 5.56 and start over, with her brothers at her side! I love her spirit. She’s one of those “quiet girls,” but if you’re on the wrong side of Liberty, you’d best get out of her field of fire.

After telling her that she most certainly could sign a petition for secession (just not one managed by Obama’s lemmings), we had a discussion about the frustrations that have led some of our countrymen to give up on ever restoring Rule of Law.

I explained that nine of the secession petitions on the White House website have already exceeded the 25,000 signature threshold, and I anticipate Obama’s response will be some version of what he has already said about grassroots conservatives – something about those Tea Party people being an “angry mob” who are “waving their little tea bags around” while “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama and his sycophantic Leftmedia will have a good laugh with these understandable but ill-conceived petitions – and that’s unfortunate, because the petitions provide an opening for Obama to further marginalize legitimate grievances about the Left’s collective disregard for our Constitution.

Now, please don’t flood our website’s “Comments” page with a defense of these petitions. I happen to agree with old N.B. Forrest in his assessment of the principal cause of the first attempt at secession, and I take exception to the gubmint schools' uncritical and unflinching idolization of Abe Lincoln, whose reckless disregard of our Constitution exceeds that of any president in our history, with the possible exception of Barack Obama. (I guess that assessment may result in a flood of objections, too.)

The fact is, I don’t support secession, and having been around a couple of revolutions in Africa and Eastern Europe, I would much prefer constitutional restoration over insurrectionif the former is achievable.

So why, in my assessment of the electoral maps, mention secession at all?

Because an alternative worth contemplating seriously would be to pursue a Constitutional Confederation – an alliance of those states that are not under the mob rule of urban Leftists, whose delegations could assemble to re-ratify our Constitution and the Rule of Law it enshrines.

As of today, Republicans control 30 state governorships and 27 state legislatures, and twice as many states are under total Republican leadership (governor and both houses) as states controlled by Democrats. That is plenty enough muscle to populate a Constitutional Confederation (as opposed to a Constitutional Convention) for the purpose of re-adopting our authentic Constitution at originally ratified, with amendments attached as prescribed. This act would, thus reject the so-called “living constitution” now obscured beyond recognition by judicial diktats from the “despotic branch” of which Thomas Jefferson so presciently warned.

Those states re-ratifying as members of the Constitutional Confederation would determine an orderly plan to withdraw from the plethora of extra-constitutional regulations and taxes in favor of Tenth Amendment federalism as prescribed when each state first ratified our Constitution. This serious movement to restore the authority of our Constitution is a genuine act in support of “We the People” rather than an act of insurrection. It most assuredly could generate national momentum and would generate a LOT of heartburn for Obama and his socialist cadres, as constitutional authority is anathema to their objective of state authority.

OK, I haven’t completely taken leave of my senses – but this notion of a Constitutional Confederation is representative of the big ideas that need to be considered in order to resolve big problems. And if you haven’t yet taken leave of your senses, you know our nation is beset with BIG problems.

Here is where we find ourselves after the presidential election.

Our nation is in crisis – and given the post election “economic revisions” this week, that crisis is not abating. The poverty rate was revised upward to 16.1 percent – a record 49 million people living in poverty by American standards (up 3 million more than estimated the week prior to the election). The Latino poverty rate was revised upward to 28 percent. Jobless claims were up 78,000 this week, with Pennsylvania and Ohio hardest hit – just wait for the December jobless claims…

Here is the short list of major domestic problems we face: Massive debt, crippling taxes, mandated tax increases and budget cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 – which will likely result in economic reversal (recession), out-of-control welfare and entitlement spending, inflation (just watch), overbearing government regulations and health care mandates, ever-expanding government plantation populations, failed educational institutions, increasing dependence on foreign oil, declining defense capability and the increasing threat of another devastating strike by Islamofascists on U.S. soil.

The short list of international problems: Chinese manipulation of debt markets, the re-emergence of Russian authoritarianism, the meltdown of relations in the Middle East and Africa, and Europe plunging back into economic recession.

Oh, and the biggest domestic problem: The re-election of a “community organizer,” who has never so much as operated a lemonade stand, with the expectation that he will solve all the other problems, even though he and his “useful idiots” spent the last four years making matters much worse.

Barack Hussein Obama has no legislative mandate, but neither do the establishment Republicans. Obama did not win the 2012 election – the GOP lost it. However, I can assure you that Obama will proceed as if he won every vote in America, not the thin 4/10ths of one percent that reseated him. That assurance was evident in Obama’s post-election press conference this week, the first in eight months, when he doubled down on his list of Leftist mandates.

The good news is that Republicans can counter Obama’s platform and restore the integrity of our Constitution, but only if the conservative wing of the Republican Party convinces the rest of the GOP to do what Mitt Romney failed to do – rally grassroots conservatives. That will require leaders in the House and Senate who actually get “the grassroots thing,” which the current leadership does not. (If new legislative leadership does not emerge, see “Constitutional Confederation” reference above.)

To better understand what the Romney campaign did not, the last time a GOP presidential contender genuinely identified with grassroots folks and they with him, was 1984, when Ronald Reagan won 525 electoral votes to his Democrat opponent’s 13. (To see what an election map looks like when a presidential candidate has earned the support of grassroots America, click here.) The Reagan model was, and remains, the right road forward.

The current cover of Newsweek proclaims “GOP: You’re History” (which is ironic for a failed magazine in its final weeks of publication), but if the GOP does not get it right from this day forward, the Republic as we know it will be history.

The fact is, almost every critical national problem we face is, in every respect, the direct result of the gross political violation of the limits our Constitution prescribes on the scope of our federal government. Period.

The current crises are accompanied by great opportunities, both in terms of policy and politics – restocking our national and state legislatures with right-minded leadership in 2014 and 2016.

We’re unlikely to win the support of any government poverty plantation dependents – those welfare captives who make up the Left’s largest constituency (50 percent). We’re not going to change the minds of ideological socialists who make up about 10 percent of Leftist voters. But the right appeal will win over a majority of the remaining 40 percent of Obama’s “middle constituency” and change the political landscape in the next two election cycles. Recall that a mere two-percent swing in the most recent election would have resulted in Obama’s defeat – which makes his victory all the more bitter. The right conservative leadership has the opportunity to win a 10 to 15 percent swing by rallying grassroots America to the cause of Liberty.

It has taken generations for our nation to become mired deep in the mud in which we now find ourselves stuck. It will take more than a few election cycles to pull us out. But there has been a great awakening among Patriots, and our ranks have grown rapidly in recent years. With the right leadership, the march to restore Liberty and constitutional integrity will be unstoppable.

Appeal_patriots_day_6

View all comments

247 Comments

Dennis Hanisch in Portal, AZ said:

Well, thank God! Someone else who does not think that old (Dis)Honest Abe was the savior of the nation. In fact, in my opinion, he CREATED most of the problems we have today.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Kermit in San Diego replied:

Dennis, you are "right on" - someone else that knows how to read foundational documents, excellent.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Kermit in San Diego replied:

Dennis, you are "right on" - someone else that knows how to read foundational documents, excellent.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 2:45 PM

matt in orange,ca said:

If the GOP does not "get it right"? I'm sorry, I don't get it. I think the reason things are as they are is because we do have it right. Our positions are right, and are rights. We cannot and will not give them up. Life and Liberty and Freedom are not open for discussion. I think, as read here, that minority voters think more as we do then as Libs do, and therefore need to be courted correctly. Also as read somewhere, obama has his mandate just as did GWB, by virtue of election.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:35 PM

David Rowell in Montana replied:

By "GOP" Alexander meant the establishment leadership in the Republican party. And, no, they don't get it.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Don Hugo in Georgia said:

Amen re: your remarks about Lincoln's abuse of the Constitution! Rarely do we see such insight about the man.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:37 PM

J Moore in Las Vegas, NV said:

This will no longer work! As you noted, Obama received 8 million less votes than last time! He got his votes by promising class warfare. More than half the country now believes that we can steal from those with money and make the poor rich at their expense. We will soon have a Supreme Court that believes this, also. This country is in the last 20 years of its existence.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Brian Foltz in Colorado said:

Mark, while I don't agree with every point you made I think you hit the nail on the head overall.. Excellent essay.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Laird in SC said:

Secession by individual states is probably not a viable strategy (although I have signed about 20 of those White House petitions myself). However, the massive rift which now divides this country appears to have reached unbridgable proportions. Look at a map of "red" and "blue" states after the last election: blue is the northeast, the upper midwest and the Left Coast; red is the whole south, most of the middle of the country and much of the southwest. Your idea of a constitutional convention sounds good, but as a practical matter it cannot happen because you won't get 2/3 of the states to support it. And even if they did, we couldn't reach sufficient agreement on the necessary changes; the gulf is too great.

We don't have to use the word "secession" (freighted as it is with emotional baggage from the last Civil War); perhaps "partition" would be better. But I think we've just about reached the point that holding together as a single nation is not sustainable. Cool and intelligent heads need to begin working on a peaceful way to separate into two or more independent countries. The differences have become irreconcilable; we need an amicable divorce.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM

WarzoneB52 in Maryland replied:

Laird, I understand your point but remember Mark was talking about the states which have Republican Governor's as well as majorities in the state house and senate conducting constitutional conventions for their respective states, and by association with each other. You're correct to note that a 50 state convention would be pointless, however a state by state one would be very exciting, and I suspect it would result in a significant jump in growth/reduction in debt within those states as well!!

Best,
W.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 3:13 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

You signed about 20 petitions yourself. So is this the will of the people or the will of a few?

If the majority wants to leave, I say let them. Jindall, Gov of LA, he called this secession effort silly, Ric Perry, played it down the middle, there will be no secession yet he understands the frustration.Th is is an amazing switch of position from when he was campaigning for president.

Since I've read that someone admitted he or she signed 20 petitions, let's have some voter I.D. to ensure it is the will of the people.

Now there is a 1868 case (Supreme Court) Texas v White. while hazy in its legal definition, it is admitted by scholars it does squash secession rights. People, start at the beginning

1m signatures, some suspect, is what, around 350m to 1, more or less. This is clearly not a majority

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Paul Gable in Dallas, Texas said:

Your mention of the 2% swing making all the difference deserves follow up. Read "Master Plan to Steal an Election" at www.brushfires-of-freedom.com/steal-an-election.html. We are despondent over the wrong things. Allen West is showing us the tip of the iceberg in St. Lucie County.
We think it is preposterous to believe an enraged nation can demand the overturning of a fraudulent election. Has it ever been tried? By Americans?

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Ken Windeler in Hastings, Florida replied:

Yes in Athens Tenn.
Although not a national election

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 1:37 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

That's exactly what the Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004 was about.

The Electoral College delegations meet on December 17. Find out where they meet in your state, and arrange a "Blue Blockade" to protest the fraud, especially if you live in Ohio or Pennsylvania. Come on, where's the TEA Party?

Friday, November 16, 2012 at 1:01 AM

Kent Benson in St. Cloud, MN said:

Dream on! The Republic is dead, actually has been for many decades. There is absolutely no chance of reserrecting it.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM

CalDI-MD in Swansea replied:

You are wrong, Kent. Only if you afre defeatist canyou make such a statement. There is always a chance, even if it is very small. An acorn is small, but it can grow into a great big oak tree!

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Gerald Smith in Evansville, IN said:

We might have had a shot in spite of Obama's vaunted high tech election machine if we had nominated a true Conservative who ran a much more aggressive campaign.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Ken Windeler in Hastings, Florida replied:

I agree
And if the blowhards like Carl Rove weren't convinced that Obama would not get re-elected.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 1:40 PM

James McCollum in Huntsville, AL replied:

Smith,
Are you one of those 3 million Republicans who decided not to vote thus giving Obama the election? What idiocy- take 4 more years of the alien baby-killer rather than vote for someone who respects the Constitution

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 8:15 PM

Rick in Memphis, TN said:

I agree with your assessment of both Lincoln and Obama regarding their disregard for the constitution! Lincoln started it, the radical republicans took even further and now every president and every congress since then has moved away following the consitution. Obama has taken it to extreme levels. Our founders would be writing a new Declaration of Independence and ready to take up arms.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:47 PM

NW_Jack in Pacific Northwest said:

Your approach, of a constitutional convention, is the poorest idea that I have read from you in the last three years (perhaps longer), as:
1) A constitutional convention cannot be limited in scope or topics.
2) The Demoncrats have proven they can manipulate any government committee.
3) Hence such an endeavor would most likely be hijacked by the Demons, with their concepts of redistributive justice enshrined in a new document.

Two immediate steps are suggested
1) find some way to limit Supreme Court redefinitions. Reason: BHO will soon have a majority of (new) justices voting his way.
2) Decide and implement one of the flag alternatives
a) Keep flying as-is
b) Fly at half-staff
c) Fly upside down
d) Drape a black border around
e) Fly a flag of 9 vertical stripes (red-white-red...), a la original Sam Adams Sons of Liberty

As the Demons consider a flag meaningless, they won't understand, BUT
1) Independents will
2) Latinos will (and the Latino extreme groups are likely to react, which will cause favorable public relations for the flag flyers).

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Laird in SC replied:

Jack, re your comment that "a constitutional convention cannot be limited in scope or topic":

1) That's a common argument, but I'm not convinced that it's true. The simple fact is that the Constitution doesn't provide any guidance at all on how such a convention could be called or run. It has never been tried, so no one really knows whether any limitations are possible. I suspect that they are.

2) Even if the convention could not be limited in scope, the delegates to it could. Their mandate, from the state which sent them, could be strictly limited to voting on certain topics, and even to voting in a particular manner on certain topics. Any action contrary to that mandate would be ultra vires and void. If enough states did this (and there's no reason to doubt that they would, since the states calling for the convention would obviously have a purpose and outcome in mind) the net effect would be severe practical limitations on what a convention could accomplish.

3) Even if the convention were "hijacked by the Demons", anything they came up with would still require ratification by 3/4ths of the states. So any bad result would simply be rejected by the country at large.

4) Finally, with regard to the concept of a convention "slipping its bonds", I remind you that the US Constitution itself, which we all so revere, was itself the product of such a convention called merely to correct defects in the old Articles of Confederation. The delegates decided to scrap the whole thing and start from scratch, clearly beyond their mandate, but we're all pretty happy today with the result. Who's to say that wouldn't happen again? (Plus, see point #3 above: we'd still have the final say on whether to approve their work.)

So the bottom line is that a constitutional convention contains no terrors for me.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM

jbetatum in NM replied:

Hey folks, reread what Mark wrote:
"That is plenty enough muscle to populate a Constitutional Confederation (as opposed to a Constitutional Convention) for the purpose of re-adopting our authentic Constitution in its original form, amended as prescribed, and thus rejecting the so-called "living constitution" now obscured beyond recognition by the "despotic branch" of which Thomas Jefferson so presciently warned. Those states re-ratifying would then reject extra-constitutional regulations and taxes in favor of Tenth Amendment federalism as prescribed when each state first ratified our Constitution."

If I read this correctly, he emphasized Not a Constitutional Convention.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 3:25 PM

enemaofthestatistquo in Monroe, GA replied:

Well, at least no terrors any worse than the ones we already face.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 7:43 PM

David Coburn in Rural Hall, NC said:

Regarding your comment: "I take exception to the gubmint schools' uncritical and unflinching idolization of Abe Lincoln, whose reckless disregard of our Constitution exceeds that of any president in our history, with the possible exception of Barack Obama," you are exactly right, as usual!

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Clarence De Barrows in Walnut Creek, CA said:

Mr. Alexander: I concur with your thinking, but not your confidence that we can correct the problem by working within the current political system and those in power. My contention is that the WHOLE political community is complicit in ignoring the mandates inherent in our Constitution. They are ALL, the Judiciary, the Congress and the Executive branch complicit in perpetuating a "rigged game" of politics. We can dialogue and work to influence those in power, but it is still taking place in a "rigged" setting. You can't win in a rigged game. The powers that be will allow only so much latitude for discussion before shutting down dissent. The Founders knew this. That's why our Constitution incorporated the safeguards which are ignored, in our time, by citing "case law" as the significant authority relative to same. I respect your opinion relative to the action which should be taken, but we've talked enough. It's time for action. The problem is I'm afraid that, sadly, the character of ta good number of American Citizens has been so compromised that talk is all they are capable of as they feed at the public trough.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Anton D Rehling in Olympia, WA replied:

I agree

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Robert E8 USN Ret in SE AZ replied:

Mr. Rehling, your agreement is, in my view, quite precise. In that Mr. DeBarrow's points are most accurate. I generally agree with Mark Alexander, today is an exception only in some points. Thank you for the comment.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Eric in Texas said:

The secessionist petitions are not about revolution but demonstrating disagreement with the existing occupants of the White House. Mr. Obama and his ilk have declared they have a mandate for taxing the rich. Secessionist petitioners, especially on a lemming administered web page and in large numbers, demonstrate that not only does Mr. Obama NOT have a mandate to tax the rich he also does not have across the board support for his socialist agenda. In other words the petitions are a means to voice large-scale discontent with his policies.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Gary Ellerhorst in Cincinnati, OH said:

Until those who elected Obama start to experience the consequences of their vote, they will NEVER change. Socialism is all about a disconnect of cause and effect, and it is the only way it survives. We must make sure that the groups that elected Obama are no longer immune to the results of his programs. Therefore, I am increasing my charitable giving by 10%, but limiting donations to those where I KNOW where my money goes...and much of it will now go out of the US where the REAL poverty is. No more Food Banks, no more Free Store, no more United Way. Sounds cruel, but I refuse to be a "Dagny Taggart" and have my honor and my Christian values used against me through guilt. When minority jobless rates are above 25%, college is unaffordable, union companies are financially impacted and unmarried women are sitting in their freezing apartments with nothing to eat but their free birth control pills, THEN we will see change. Until then, we are our own worst enemy.

Thursday, November 15, 2012 at 12:51 PM