The . . . States of America

When the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) went into effect, many governors opted to refuse the included expansion of Medicaid in their states, an expansion that would not have cost their states anything.  They turned down optional federal money for their residents in need on principle; they willingly hurt the people of their state to protest a federal law they disagreed with.

The grass is always greener outside.

A recent article:

Ron Paul: “Good News” That Secession Is Happening

Former Republican presidential candidate and congressman Ron Paul says secession is happening and it’s “good news.” Paul later predicted the states would stop listening to federal laws.

“I would like to start off by talking about the subject and the subject is secession and, uh, nullification, the breaking up of government, and the good news is it’s gonna happen. It’s happening,” Paul, the father of potential Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul, told a gathering at the libertarian Mises Institute in late January. The event Paul was speaking at was titled “Breaking Away: The Case for Secession.”

Paul said secession would not be legislated by Congress, but would be de facto, predicting “when conditions break down…there’s gonna be an alternative.”

“And it’s not gonna be because there will be enough people in the U.S. Congress to legislate it. It won’t happen. It will be de facto. You know, you’ll have a gold standard when the paper standard fails, and we’re getting awfully close to that. And people will have to resort to taking care of themselves. So when conditions break down, you know, there’s gonna be an alternative. And I think that’s what we’re witnessing.”

Later, Paul said the Federal Reserve would end and the states would stop listening to federal laws they didn’t agree with.

“The Fed is gonna end. There is going to be a de facto secession movement going on. The states are going to refuse to listen to some of the laws. We’ve seen tremendous success already with states saying to the federal government, ‘We’re not gonna listen to you anymore about the drug laws.’ And they’re getting out of it, and I think the American people are waking up to that, and as far as I’m concerned, the more the merrier.”

My review of Trent Reedy's book Divided We Fall:

I am Private First Class Daniel Christopher Wright, I am seventeen years old, and I fired the shot that ended the United States of America.

This book has a great cover and an amazing hook. I knew I wanted to read it as soon as I started looking at it as one of our new books. The rest of the hook:

When I enlisted in the Idaho Army National Guard, I swore to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the state of Idaho against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I swore that I would obey the orders of the president of the United States and the governor of Idaho, as well as the orders from officers appointed over me, according to the law and regulations.

But what could I do when my president and my governor called each other domestic enemies and both issued me lawful orders to fight against the other? When both claimed to support the Constitution? When the Army was ordered to fight against the Army and no place was safe?

I swore to obey the orders of my president and of my governor. I swore to defend the Constitution. I swore these things before God.

May God forgive me. May God in Heaven forgive us all.

Considering the expectations that created, I was impressed by how gradually and believably the situation developed. Almost too believably, really, because what develops seems scarily close to reality and a potential near future for the actual United States.

I should qualify that comment as being about the political situation and overall story arc. Protagonist Danny and those he encounters are basically believable as well--I may not have always like them or their decisions, but I recognized them as real people similar to many I've known. Some of the details and specifics of Danny's story, at times the dialogue and the descriptions, the "action sequences," the roles characters sometimes assume as types when debating with each other to keep a balanced, widely-represented perspective to the proceedings . . . they were sufficient vehicles to allow the story play out, but kept it from being an overall stellar package.

Still, this is a gripping, thoughtful, powerful story, one deserving of many thoughtful readers interested in considering how a nation might very easily come apart as seen through the eyes of a young man during his descent from respectable patriot to accidental terrorist--or rise to hero, depending on which side of the state line one stands.

Geese know things go better when they stick together.

Speaking of Idaho, part of another recent article:

Republicans Propose Declaring Idaho a ‘Christian State’

Members of a county Republican Party in Idaho are to take up a measure on Tuesday evening that would declare the state a Christian one to bolster what the proposal calls the “Judeo-Christian bedrock of the founding of the United States.”

The resolution to be voted on by the Kootenai County Republican Central Committee is non-binding, meaning it does not have the effect of laws or rules.

The proposal seeks that Idaho be “formally and specifically declared a Christian state,” guided by a Judeo-Christian faith reflected in the U.S. Declaration of Independence where all authority and power is attributed to God, the resolution reads.

The measure argues that the Christian faith is under “strident attack” in the United States, and cites as evidence the absence of Christian traditions and symbols in public institutions such as schools.

Excerpts from A.S. King's book Glory O'Brien's History of the Future:

From what I can see, and I can't see everything, it will all start with the Fair Pay Act . . . or more accurately, the loophole someone will find in order to avoid it.

The Fair Pay Act will be a federal law that will finally require employers to pay women the same as men for performing the same jobs.  It, or something like it, has been on the minds of some lawmakers since the late twentieth century but never quite evened out the pay situation.

The loophole in the federal Fair Pay Act will be simple.

How can states make sure they won't have to pay women fairly?

Make it illegal for women to work.

Genius.

It will take one short month for the first state legislature to exploit the loophole in the Fair Pay Act and to pass the Family Protection Act.

A week later, when the governor gives it his stamp of approval, women representatives and senators will be escorted out of their offices and will be given no opportunity to appeal.

It will, from that day forward, be illegal for them to work in their own state.  Even as a waitress.  Even as a lap dancer.  Even as an Avon makeup representative.

The governor will call this a victory for families.

 . . .

The Family Protection Act will spread like lice on a hippie commune.  Nine states will draw up similar laws and move them through their legislative branches.  They will unofficially secede from the rest of the country, who will think they are bonkers.  They will call themselves New America.

There will be a massive rise in welfare applications for single women, single mothers and their children.  A massive rise in homeless women and children.  A massive rise in random assaults, both violent and sexual, against women and even young girls.

A government official will be quoted as saying, "We're taking our country back!"  (From whom?  From women and children?  Did they take over wen none of us were looking?  I can't see that in these transmissions, but I doubt it.)  Another government official will be quoted as saying, "We gave women two hundred years to reinvent themselves.  I think that's long enough."

Women in the media will compare the entire movement to the days of cavemen.  Some of them will be confused about what to do or say because they will have unknowingly supported the movement up to the point when they are shown to the studio's door.

And then one state will make a bold move and pass the Fathers Count Law by refusing welfare assistance to any single mother or her children.

I haven't seen what happens after this yet, but it looks like a lot of people starve and a lot of people leave their homes and look for a life somewhere else.

One thing I did see was the collapse of most basic services.  Women work in a lot of places.  I don't think any of those lawmakers who passed the laws ever thought about what would really happen when they opened the loophole.

Or maybe they did and they just didn't care.

 . . .

The Fathers Count Law will be lauded by lawmakers who feel that America has become a welfare state for women who weren't smart enough to use birth control, even though the same lawmakers are on record as being against birth control.

Seems the New America will be run by moronic dipshits.  Fantastic.

The Fathers Count Law will also call for the end of child support as we know it--no father who no longer lives with his wife and children will be required to pay for their upkeep.  "If those mothers didn't see that fathers count before they left those men, they why should we give them money?"

Chalk up more points for the moronic dipshit team who obviously didn't pay any attention to who-usually-walks-out statistics.

In the small print, the Fathers Count Law will allow a husband to abandon his wife if he feels the wife isn't meeting his personal or domestic needs.  But if a woman leaves her husband under any circumstances, she will be breaking the Fathers Count Law.

 . . .

It will take a year for the Second Civil War to start . . .