Sunday, April 25, 2010

Irreconcilable Differences

Is there any divorce that would meet with God's approval? What if the two sides realized that they will never, ever get along again? Remember, God hates divorce. Marriage is a uniting of two into one. Divorce is the taking of that one and tearing it into two, again. It was never meant to be.

But, what if the irreconcilable differences were not concerning the marriage relationship? What if the divorce had to do with Left vs Right? What if the union being divided was the Union? Would God have an opinion on a national divorce? They tried this once, back in the 1860's. It resulted in the Civil War being fought over states rights (the cause of the south) and slavery (the cause of the north). After four years of killing, the Union was preserved. Since we know that God is in control, we must recognize that the outcome of the Civil War was God's will. Would we have to physically fight each other in America in order to find God's will, again?

Maybe your solution would be a healthy dose of union counseling. We could all lay our emotions on the table and just try to be more understanding and not so dogmatic in getting our own way.

Maybe a duel could solve the issue. Each side would each pick one person and these two would have a sword fight - winner takes all.

Maybe we could have an election. Oh wait, we have already been doing that and look where we are. If the right wins, the Left will claim the Right stole the election. If the Left wins, the Right will know that the Left cheated.

What do we do? Ten paces, turn and shoot? Have a drawing for a winning philosophy? Stand across a field in Virginia and shoot at each other? No matter what course we choose, the winner will claim victory and the loser will not accept the results.

"Irreconcilable differences" is just what it says, there are differences in the way each side wants to take this country that do not work together. They are mutually exclusive. They cannot exist side-by-side.

So, what do we do? Maybe it is time for the great, national experiment. Split! Go our separate ways! Part in peace and wish the best to each other. There could be the United Coastal Liberal America (UCLA) made up of Hawaii, the west coast states, the northeast states, D.C. and we will throw in New Mexico. The remainder of the states, Alaska, the mountain and central states, and the southeast states could become American States United (ASU).

This could be done without firing a shot, which would be good for UCLA as they have few states where they actually have guns. We could form trade agreements where the workers in ASU could sell to the entitlement class in UCLA. Since the UCLA population will not be manufacturing anything and all of their jobs will be government or service related, once in a while we could go on vacation to the coast and let them pamper us for a few days until we longed for the smell of freedom and went back home to ASU.

Clearly, there would be an initial population shift to get the socialists all located in UCLA and rescue the the producers, business owners, doctors, manufacturing companies, etc from the territories where they are despised. Once the settling-in was complete, let the experiment begin.

The Left could go socialist, Marxist, fascist, communist; just as far as they want. They would have no resistance and their leaders could quickly establish rulership over their masses in the lower class.

The Right could re-establish a republican form of government (rule of law), find the last known copy of the Constitution and reinstate it's principles. We may have to have a few amendments to make some minor changes that will ensure that what begins good will stay that way and not slide to the left as what happened in the former USA. As ASU will have the lovers of God, supporters of national defense, low taxes, non-union workers, limited government influence; and of course freedom; I believe we would be just fine without L.A., San Francisco, D.C., New York, etc.

ASU could actually close the borders instead of just talk about it. But, of course, we would have borders on all four sides that we would have to close. We don't want illegal aliens from California or New York trying to get in without our permission.

Let's see, would ASU have what it needs for survival?
military - check
farm, ranch land and forests - check
oil, natural gas and coal - check
air bases, naval yards, army bases - check
freedom to drill for additional sources of energy - check
hunting and fishing - check
booming economy with production jobs - check
no national debt - check
like-minded people who are willing to work for a paycheck - check
no Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Clinton - a big check

What would we be missing?
free-loader entitlement-minded goof-balls - check
high taxes - check
"Big Brother" - check

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that irreconcilable differences can make it "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another." He also understood that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles."

We love you Leftists, we just hate how you think and what you are doing. Go in peace and may the best country win.


  1. "If the Left wins, the Right will know they cheated." Yeah, you're not a biased writer at all, are you? Totally objective. (:
    I know, I's YOUR blog. That just made me laugh.

  2. "Clearly, there would be an initial population shift...."

    Like the "population shift" when (at British instigation) an independent India fragmented into majority-Hindu India and majority-Muslim Pakistan? That was, from the little I know of the initial event, a blood-soaked mess, not seamless and tidy process you seem to imply.

    Fundamentally, this also implies unanimity, the bogeyman of Founders like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

    Your reference to "like minded" people shows the growing popularity of the idea that people should "move to San Francisco" if they don't believe in torturing terror suspects. (I have literally read this in response to anti-waterboarding articles, when in fact it was a Texas jury in 1983 that found a sheriff guilty of violating inmates' civil rights because he used essentially the same technique. It was a federal judge--from Texas--who sentenced that sheriff to ten years in prison, along with the fine of $12,000.)

    Aside from discomfort (if you will permit that mild phrase) that I feel at the suggestion of secession, it is the particulars as well as the principle that merits scrutiny. It is not only secession, but the object aimed at: Seceding in order to obtain uniformity of opinion. I cannot cheer for the objective, or the proposed means of obtaining it.

  3. On higher taxes: In his book, "Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America," Brandies historian David Hackett Fischer wrote that patterns of public spending "have remained relatively the same for three centuries."

    Fischer explained, "In the mid-eighteenth century, levels of taxation for state and local governments were roughly twice as high in New England as in Virginia," with levels for the Quaker-influenced Delaware Valley resting in the middle, and the Scots-Irish interior South having the lowest tax rates and least government activity. "Relative levels of taxing and spending by region have changed remarkably little in many generations."

    The higher tax rates in Massachusetts are not marks of liberalism, but sign of Puritanism. Interestingly, New England towns spent most of their taxes on schools and established churches, while Southern parishes spent most of their taxes on poor relief.

    I think most Americans, and people around the world, will wish to support and assist the hardworking people of the Southern coast as they face the oil spill.

  4. The Left seems to believe that the government is a good vehicle to assist the needy and do so by taking money from others and then selecting who to dole it out to. The Right believes that they should have the choice of who they help and, from what I have heard, the statistics show that Republicans typically donate more to charities.

  5. I have heard of those same surveys, but cannot cite them off the top of my head--but I affirm I have also heard of that survey finding.

    I will suggest that the right does not believe exclusively in voluntary support of faith-based charities & schools, but has a longer recent track record of supporting tax support for private education. This was in fact taxation in the name of helping the needy, the usual pretext for vouchers. Sadly, liberals have jumped on the faith-based wagon.

    Yes, I know of and applaud many faith-based programs. I prefer that support for faith-based schools remain, as you say, the voluntary choice of individuals.

  6. I do not wish to categorize this interesting talk by a novelist who tells her academic audience about the importance of spirituality, or about transcending the politics of identity (a concern of both yourself and this author), but she does briefly come to the point that "communities of the like-minded" are "one of the greatest dangers of today's globalized world." I thought of your posts, and this thread, in hearing that remark.

    Thank you.

  7. Brian, I just listened to her talk and it was interesting. I do not know if the phrase "cultural ghettos" is original with her; but, after thinking about the concept, it seems that we already have such a thing in many aspects of our various cultures. Adding the word "ghetto" seems to be an attempt to imply a negative connotation. What if we called them, instead, "cultural communes" or "social sanctuaries"? Now, for the same setting, we imply a postive connotation.

    I also wonder just what all she meant by the quote you included, "communities of the like-minded" are "one of the greatest dangers of today's globalized world." I assume that "communities of the like-minded" are "cultural ghettos". So, what are they, in reality: Georgetown, posh neighborhoods in San Francisco, small Southern towns, Indian reservations, prisons, skin-heads, FLDS communities, Black hoods, Hispanic barrios, Hell's Angels gangs, Muslim neighborhoods, Unions, seminaries, Bible studies, etc...

    We have communities of like-minded people in various levels of the present society. I do not believe we can have society without "likes" being attracted to "likes". This is a natural process in various areas of our normal lives.

    I guess that I would have to disagree with her statement, that groups of like-minded people present a dangerous situation.

  8. It was an interesting talk. Thanks for checking out the link.

    Certainly there are different denominations that gather for weekly or nightly services, but most do not resent intermingling and interacting with others. Most (many, at least) understand that those not within their circle of denominational fellowship are still fellow-citizens.

    I would hope that different groups can have their socializing, without seeking the fragmentation of the country.