It’s a tantrum – if these people don’t get their way, they’ll destroy the country.
Not that I give a good god-damn, but it pleases me that people are starting to talk about (see?) what I’ve been trying to point out since o-eight: everything about Ron Paul is kicking the can down to the “states”. Everything. After the caveat…
Caveat: 1) I am a First American First, an Oregonian, a Cascadian, second, and an “American” a distant third. Oregon was a Republic, before it was a “state”, and I don’t think we can build a wall – from Eureka California to Eureka Montana – fast enough, because there ain’t nuthin’ east of The Rocky Mountains we need; and 2) “America” effectively ended with the appointment by an ideologically stacked activist court of a dynastic AWOL frat-boy descendant of one of Hitler’s financiers with limited intellect, questionable sexuality and unquestionable loyalty to The Corporation to the highest office of the land. “America” as we have known her is over, we’re where we’re at on momentum, and that’s running out of steam.
To use Oregon as an example: with to this day the lowest per capita minority population, as recently as 1960 (pig era) though the nearest “black” man was three hundred miles away in another state we still had chapters of the Klu Klux Klan – my grand-father was one of them. In Gilchrest, a sawmill town fifty miles from the nearest “town”, a hundred from the nearest city. And as recently as 1960 (pig era) we sterilized, and euthanized, those the state deemed as “less than”. This is the sort of policy Ron Paul advocates when he advocates “state’s rights”.
It has long been my contention, re. caveat 1, that “the country” is devolving into autonomous, semi-autonomous or even independent “nation/states” centered on bioregional, cultural, economic and environmental commons, and I am actively involved in an open Cascadian“separatist” movement – we were, afterall, a Republic before we were a “state”. Hence my quandary – a Ron Paul “Tenth Amendment” presidency would hasten that demise, yet I cannot in good conscience support such a presidency. It would stain the inevitable outcome.
Ron Paul’s “state’s rights” is simply kicking the can down another road.
