These Disunited States: The Coming 'Great Divorce'

One of the most coveted honors of ancient Rome was that of "Citizen". Originally it was bestowed on the truest and most loyal of allies and brought with it numerous benefits including the right to own land, receive a grain allowance, and the right to vote.

However, over time the honor became less and less important as it was sold to the highest bidder or given out to partially any group which settled within Roman borders (with or without permission) and promised to follow the laws (which they did in varying degree). In time, the title of "Citizen" lost any real value. Sound familiar?

As more and more  diverse peoples settled within Rome's boundaries and the Empire lost its ability (and will) to enforce "Pax Roma" ("Roman Peace"). Pax Roma meant the adoption of Roman laws, customs, traditions, values, language, and culture.

Rome eventually became a hodgepodge of many differing peoples living in their own mini-kingdoms, speaking their own tongue, following their own customs, and so forth. Of course, there was a merger in varying degrees of cultures, values, and laws, but the single cohesion that was once Rome was gone.

If any of this sounds familiar, it should. Not only are we confronting "balkanization" here in the United States, we're seeing throughout the West thanks to unrestricted migration (which looks more like an invasion than a immigration)  and weak, ineffectual or incompetent politicians. However, not all of this is coming from outside. Much of it is coming from within our own country.

In the United States we're seeing growing demands on both sides of the political spectrum for an amicable divorce of sorts. Some groups are wanting to be given wide swaths of land to create their own mini-nation, while others are looking for semi-autonomous fiefdoms in and around cities.

Then there are those ethnic groups who have already simply established their own defacto enclaves complete with a dominate non-English language, traditions, and so forth. In some areas in Europe, like London or Paris, there are areas with their own police force and court system to enforce Sharia and other laws (recently, religious "police", used to enforce Sharia law, have been reported in New York).

The official police have little or no real authority within these areas. Unwary residents (and tourists) not following prescribed guidelines risk being detained, arrested, and/or fined! In the U.S., we even have some groups and prominent individuals attempting to supplant our National Anthem with their own. They even are demanding their anthem be played at all events where the National Anthem is played. Some are insisting that their own flag be flown alongside (or above) the Stars and Stripes.

Recently, here in the U.S., we had another shooting in a major city, Rge shooting took place in a heavily black neighborhood, As a result, a large crowd had gathered and was becoming unruly. The police dispatched all available officers along with EMS as you would expect in order to render assistance and bring the situation under control. However, when officers arrived a riot almost broke out. Why? Because one of the police officers was white!

While you'd expect the residents to cooperate under the circumstances, the situation suddenly got worse.   The residents began to block officers as tried to provide assistance ad started becoming aggressive. The reason was because there was a white officer present. In order to calm the situation and get to the wounded individual, the white officer was persuaded to leave the scene (along with the "encouragement" of his fellow non-white officers).

What the event signified is a change in attitude concerning policing whereby only certain racial or ethnic officers will be allowed to patrol on certain areas to encourage racial or ethnic "sensitivity".  Meanwhile predominately white areas will have to accept whoever shows up in order to avoid imagined charges of "racism". This change in attitude toward community policing is something that wouldn't have even been considered just a few years ago, but it's reflective of the growing split in the country.

Around the world there are literally hundreds of separatists and secessionists movements. Some of these exist as part of a nationalist movement to push out the last vestiges of colonialism or to carve out a historical homeland such as "Aztlan" (whose name ironically means "land of whiteness") among Hispanics.

Aztlan is a mythical or semi mythical homeland of the ancient Aztecs who believed the land, which comprises much of the western U.S., was given to them by their chief deity, Huitzilopochtli (where have we heard a similar story like that before?). Beginning in the late 1950's, Chicanos of the southwest United States adopted the myth as history, and with it all the symbolism that went it.

They've created many of the trappings of expected of a nation---a flag, an anthem, media, promoted a cultural revival and even created a quasi political organization, "La Raza" (which means "The Race"), to help elect or promote like minded individuals, and to serve as a loose shadow government, all of which whose sole aim is to resurrect Aztlan.

But the Chicanos aren't the only ones. In Hawaii, there is a strong movement to reclaim Hawaii's historic sovereignty. What many people don't know is that unlike the other states, Hawaii was once an independent nation with its government, head of state, laws, and everything else which goes with being a sovereign country.

In 1893, the United States, with political pressure (ie: money) from powerful business interests, staged a coup against the Kingdom of Hawaii. In 1898 Hawaii was declared a "protectorate" but was in a fact considered a defacto colony until 1959 when it became the 50th state (it's strategic importance was felt with the Japanese attack on December 7, 1941). The U.S. currently has 16 protectorates and territories it oversees. The largest and most populous of which is Puerto Rico.    

Other groups, such as the League of the South, a political and cultural revival organization, seeks to recreate a "free and independent Southern Republic".  Their goal is not to revive the Antebellum South, but to protect the history, traditions, heritage, and culture of southeastern United States, which had been largely settled by Northern English, Scots, Irish, and Welsh colonists (along with a strong Spanish and French influence), unlike the North whose primarily settlers were English and Continental Europeans, especially Germans.

Politically, they maintain that the states voluntarily joined the union, and thus had the right to leave on their own accord, something President Lincoln vigorously opposed.Joining the union was not a one way Faustian bargain. Many historians and students of the Constitution tend to agree that the Founding Fathers would have supported the South's assertion in that regard.  

A group with a similar objective is the 2nd Vermont Republic. Vermont was a independent republic from 1771 through 1791. The group, formed in 2003, has been relatively successful locally. Leaning libertarian,  it opposes the "tyranny" of a corporate run America and loss of control by ordinary citizens. There is also an effort to include New Hampshire and possibly Maine in this newly reconstituted republic.

Even Alaska has a growing independence movement under the auspices of the Alaskan Independence Party, which was founded in 1984, and whose ideology is basically conservative and libertarian. They call for a limited government, low taxes, strong gun rights, and more direct government. 

And then there is Oregon. The state is divided by the Cascade Mountains, with the majority of the population on the east or coastal side. Here is where you'll find most of the high paying jobs, along with the high tech businesses and universities. On the western side of the mountains you'll find mostly small communities and lots of farms where the cattle actually outnumber the people. But that's not all.

On the coast side, you'll likely find mostly a college educated younger population which is considered extremely liberal. Groups like Antifa and BLM are popular and active here. There are vibrant LGBQT communities, especially around Portland. Western Oregon is primarily rural. The population is older and more settled with families having lived there for generations...and they are conservative. What they call "traditional" with "family values", and one other thing. They all want a divorce. 

Specifically, they want a divorce from their fellow Oregonians on the other side of Cascades. The reason is as old as the U.S. itself. The capital of Oregon, Salem, and it's largest city, Portland, are heavily dominated by progressives, which doesn't set well with these conservative farmers.

Unfortunately, with the population differential on either side of the Cascades, there is no way the conservative Westside has or will ever have a equal say.  Therefore, 13 western counties representing 63% of the land mass but only 9% of the population, are seeking to merge with the equally rural and conservative state of Idaho.

The divorce is called the "Greater Idaho Movement', and it's definitely taken root, and Idaho is interested. There's even countless precedents for similar divorces going back to the founding of the country. It's nothing personal. Sometimes things just don't work out. For instance,  in 1861, 48 western counties in Virginia decided they didn't want to secede from the Union and voted to remain. Those counties became the West Virginia in 1863. (the new state was originally named "Kanawha").

So why hasn't it happened? Well, there are several reasons. One of which involves getting the Oregon and Idaho state legislatures on the same page (and Oregon isn't too keen about losing the tax revenue). Once the two states come to an agreement, it then has to be approved by the U.S. Congress since the shift in population would affect the House's representation, which is based on population, would be determined. To further explain the significance of this succession of counties would have at the local, state, and national levels.

A breakup of this size would be significant. Not only would it change the map, but it would also affect the state's representation in Congress. It could also impact the direction both states takes on local issues for years or decades to come.

Such a move could also set the stage for other successions, not to mention the possible creation of modern city-states. Imagine dominate cities such as Atlanta Georgia or Louisville Kentucky, which are the economic engines of their respective states, could become more independent while incorporating adjacent areas (Louisville is facing its own potential succession problem. There's a growing interest in southwest Jefferson County to break away from an ineffectual metro government and merge with neighboring Bullitt County).  

Hypothetically, some have proposed some areas going the racial, ethnic, or religious route by becoming semi-independent enclaves such as East LA in California or Laredo Texas which both have a 95% Hispanic majority.  South Fulton Georgia is 93% Black while Jackson Mississippi and Detroit Michigan are both over 80% Black. Dearborn Michigan has the largest Muslim population in the United States and growing.

This would easily go hand-in-hand with the secessionist goals of Black and Hispanic groups or Muslims struggling to cope with Western values and cultures. Throughout Europe, and especially in England. There, newly arrived migrants---mostly Muslim---have already set up their own defacto semi-autonomous zones complete with courts, police, religious laws, and all the other requirements needed to be a transplanted community nearly indistinguishable from Damascus or Baghdad. 

America was founded to welcome all peoples who came here legally and sought freedom. Migrants were expected to leave the past behind and become Americans. The government has twice devalued the status of "citizen" by granting amnesty to thousands who came here illegally and appears to be prepared to do it again.  But one has to wonder if, after 200 years, the time has come for each to go their own way just as Rome did.

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

Video: Breaking Up? Nationwide Separatist Movement is Growing

 

Aztlan and the Chicano Movement

Territories of the United States

   

Vermont Independent

'Greater Idaho' movement to absorb rural counties from Oregon gain momentum

Black Separatism

 

President Trump and the Mexican Wall

Presidential candidate Donald Trump promised us a wall. It was to be a wall which ran the length of the US-Mexico border ---1,933 miles--- and the Mexican Government was going to pay "100%" of it according to Trump. Well, we still want that wall, yet the President-elect hasn't said to much about it, although he is still putting together his Cabinet. I'm sure Mexico is still holding its breath, hoping that the promise of a wall to keep illegal immigrants out was just the usual campaign rhetoric---all bark and no bite. Of course, Mexico's current president, Enrique Pena, has said that they would never agree to paying for a wall they don't want and that if one was built, he would suspend trade to the US and hinted that Mexico would try to tear it down or circumvent the wall everywhere and every chance they could. Everyone knows that the Mexican drug cartels have dozens of well built tunnels running under the Mexican-US border from Texas to California (and then there's all the access points along the Gulf Coast, all California's coastline, and, of course, by air). Former Mexican President, Vicente Fox added a bit more drama by repeatedly stating that the US had "no right" to erect a barrier between the two countries and Mexicans had "every right to come and go as they pleased".

So, what's the latest? We know (at least by estimation) that there are currently just over 11 million illegals in the US, which is down from approximately 12 million a few years ago, and that number seems to be holding steady. Of that number, around 52% are Mexican, with the rest coming from other parts of Central and South America as well as from Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The state's most affected include the usual suspects such as California, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, along with some surprises like Washington, New York, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The majority of these individuals are employed in low income, often manual labor jobs such as in the restaurant business (table busing, servers, cooks, dishwashers), fashion (seamstresses, pattern cutting), hospitality (maids, laundry), agriculture (farm hands, pickers), general construction (roofing, paving, painting/wallpaper hanging, framing) as well as tree trimming and auto mechanics.

Most are here because they were in search of a job, not a chance to start over as Americans as many proponents of open borders and amnesty claim. In fact, the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have openly stated that they have no intention to become a US Citizen, even if they had the opportunity to do so. Many have also stated that they have no interest in learning English (or if they do, just enough to get by: many depend on the few who are bilingual). Some have also insisted that their children be taught in Spanish only---no English. This means taxpayers are forced to pay for bilingual tutors as well as extra school books and material printed in Spanish. In addition, taxpayers are forced to pick up the costs for healthcare, which, again, calls for bilingual employees.

Although it is a criminal offense for employers to hire illegal immigrants, many do. Under the Obama Regime, the Department of Justice was ordered to curtail its enforcement efforts while the ICE and the US Border Patrol were both order to stand down (in some cases, they actually ordered to either look away or leave the area). We also saw the AG suing the State of Arizona for codifying and enforcing existing US immigration laws (the AG also took the unprecedented step of allowing a foreign government---Mexico---to take part in the lawsuit, and, of course, who could forget the monumental (and criminal) blunder by AG Eric Holder and the ATF with the 2009 - 2011 "Fast and Furious" fiasco which illegally sold weapons to Mexican criminals and drug cartels in the ill conceived effort to "track" the weapons.

Actually, I shouldn't say "ill conceived" since they proved fairly easy to track with the wounded or murdered DEA, ICE, and US Border Agents, not to mention innocent civilians. In my mind, both then Attorney General Eric Holder and the Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should have been fired and prosecuted for their actions while in office, but when your boss and buddy is the President of the United States, I guess you can get away with a lot (in all fairness, AG Eric Holder was cited for contempt by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is a lot like a parent threatening a misbehaving child that they'll count to three if the bad behavior doesn't stop).

So, this brings us back to the wall. Its seems more and more likely that there will be no wall. Republican legislators have been cold to the idea ever since then candidate Trump first mentioned building a wall. Some represent states with large Hispanic populations, and, of course, politicians are always thinking about the next election. Legislators in California have made it abundantly clear that they could prevent any type of barrier to be built. Some have cited the impracticability of wall given that it would gave to close to 2000 miles long, plus include motion sensors (and I suspect drones) to monitor anyone trying to climb over it, as well as ground sensors to monitor any below surface digging, as well as regular patrols and fast response teams.

Of course, there is the question of what to do with all the illegals caught. Currently, most are booked, photographed, given a quick physical and meal, then bused or flown back to the home country where a few days or weeks later, everyone plays the same "hide and seek" game all over again. The only ones benefiting from this are "coyotes" or people smugglers who make a minimum of US $1000 a head and the drug cartels who persuade (or intimidate) a few to act as "mules" or drug smugglers in exchange for passage. A few may end up in jail---at the taxpayer's expense as always---where the team up with convicted gang and/or cartel members and learn a whole new set of "job skills". Countries like Mexico have no interest in stopping the illegal border crossings since it helps with their economic problems by reducing their unemployment numbers and the drain on their public assistance system (plus Mexico and Latin America has little to no middle class thanks to outdated socio-political-religious policies and norms). Secondly, most illegals in this country regularly send money back to their homeland which, again, helps their local economy. Lastly, there the notion that most of Western and Midwestern US actually "belong" to Mexico based on the mythical land of "Aztlan", as well as land acquired during the Mexican-American War between 1846 and 1848 following the Texas Revolution of 1836 and it annexation of 1845.

There's a lot of businesses who don't want a wall built either because they depend on the cheap...and unregulated labor. These are often the folks who'll work their employees for next to nothing for hours on ends and often in unimaginable conditions, but not always. Some are seasonal employers, especially farmers or those in the livestock or horse industry who need low skilled but dependable help. The pay isn't great but not that bad either. The work is often long, hot, sporadic and necessary. Labor unions too oppose restricting illegal immigration. Why? Because most are employed in low skilled blue collar jobs which are usually unionized. Unions hope these individuals join unions for no other reason than to build up their near empty coffers.

Finally, there are the religious institutions who believe they are "doing God's work" by ignoring federal, state and local laws by aiding illegals in their efforts to violate immigration laws; by providing short term shelter and food; by arranging for long term housing, employment, and assisting in getting around laws, especially when it comes to education for their children or obtaining medical care. In exchange, they get a future parishioner, donor and volunteer, as well as adding to their denominational clout. Thus, in short, it'll be a tough sell even for "The Donald". As for the pro-amnesty folks who like to "boo-hoo" about "tearing families apart", let's place them blame where it squarely belongs---on the violators themselves. They know their actions are illegal. They understand they are intentionally committing a crime. They know what the results will be if they're caught. They know what the right thing is they should do, be it for a seasonal, temporary, or long term job. Sorry, but pulling at the heartstrings just doesn't get it. They're the ones who are solely responsible for their decisions. It's like not jailing a bank robber because it's going to be hard on their family.

So, what can Trump actually do? Well, it's obvious that despite how good the sound bites were, there won't be a wall. As President, he can appoint an Attorney General and Director of the Department of Justice who will follow the law and do their job. He can ensure that there are ample ICE and Border Patrol Agents and they are adequately funded. He could have individuals caught grouped by origin and dumped at the nearest embassy (or bill each country for the expense which could be deducted annually from whatever loans we give them). Trump could ensure that all federal funding be stopped from an state, city, or institution which grants amnesty or aids illegals (in the case of non-profit institutions such as churches, they could face suspension or loss of their tax-exempt status). Education is in English, and so are all government documents; no federal funding provided otherwise. No further taxpayer paid medical care, unless it's for an emergency and hospitals, medical institutions, and healthcare workers cannot pass on costs to any federal agencies. Same goes for businesses---suspension of their business license and/or of any federal contracts, loans, or grants---who fail to assist any illegal worker not obtain a work permit or green card. In addition, each officer of the company is personally fined (it's a crime after all) along with the company itself.

Lastly, Trump can encourage and aid each offending nation rebuild their infrastructure and develop a stable middle class, provided they actively and demonstrably work to end the influx of illegals from their countries (after all, we give them millions if not billions every year, why not have them do something for us for a change?). It's not perfect or even ideal, but by allowing certain government agencies to do their jobs; by withholding federal funding from those in violation; by both penalizing and aiding the offending country, Trump can do a lot better than building a wall.


Trump's Mexico Border 'Wall' Vanishing as GOP Lawmakers Bolt
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-12-07/trump-s-wall-at-mexico-border-vanishing-as-gop-lawmakers-bolt


What is Aztlan, La Raza, MEChA
http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html


5 Facts about illegal Immigration in the U.S.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/


Operation Fast and Furious Fast Facts
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/27/world/americas/operation-fast-and-furious-fast-facts/index.html


Judge to Janet Napolitano: You have to deport illegal immigrants
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-to-janet-napolitano-you-have-to-deport-illegal-immigrants/article/2528019

Aztlan Anyone?

I’m willing to bet most of you have never heard of “Aztlan” and know even less about the Chicano or Aztlan Movement. As most everyone knows, Hispanics are now the largest minority in the United States; comprising approximately 15% of the total population (which is expected to rise to 29% by 2050). This dramatic increase in numbers has made the Hispanic population a potential power player in American politics at all levels. This may explain the foot dragging of those in Washington to quietly impede the building a fence along our Southern border, or provide adequate funding of border security. It may also explain why there is private distain by those inside Washington’s beltway to any efforts to establish English as our national language while allowing Spanish to become the de facto “co-language” much as French is in Canada. This brings me to question regarding Aztlan.

Aztlan was the mythical home of the Nahua people, the original inhabitants of Southwest America and ancestors of today’s Latin American populations. The Aztlan or Chicano Movement, which began in the late 1960’s, is aimed at nothing less than the “reconquista” or “reconquest” of land lost during the Westward expansion, beginning in the 1840’s and creation of a Spanish speaking “Republica del Norte” or Republic of the North. Included in this “reconquest” are Arizona, New Mexico, California, Colorado, and Texas, along with the Mexican States of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.

So, who supports the creation of this new Hispanic State? Well funded groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza (“the race”), Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, and the National Immigration Forum just to name a few (http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html , http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/Chang-aztlan.html, and http://www.atzlan.net/).

While there is no doubt that those who support the creation of Aztlan are quite serious in efforts, there are just as many Hispanics who oppose the idea. These are primarily Hispanics who have come to America legally, and established themselves within their respective communities throughout America. In short, they’ve assimilated into the tapestry of America just as countless immigrants have done over the centuries. If we allow our government officials to continue along the same path of ignoring the issues of illegal immigrations, unsecured borders (including prosecuting our border agents for doing their jobs), and protecting our national heritage by adopting English as our official language, we play into the hands of those who seek to destroy America. Nothing less than a strong secure America bound by a common language and shared culture will do in my opinion.


I’m not a big fan of talk radio, and I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh. But that does not diminish my concern when a federal agency tries to impede someone’s right of free speech, as guaranteed to each of us under the Bill of Rights. The following article was sent to me by Jim Boulet of English First, an organization I support, and whose aim is to make English our official national language. You will also find a link to a petition asking that the FCC reverse campaign to ban radio talk shows like Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham and others from public airwaves.

FCC Rule to Drive Rush Limbaugh off the Radio

Do you want the government to drive Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. James Dobson and other conservatives off your radio dial? This month, the FCC will end its review of a "Notice of Proposed Rule making" which, if ultimately adopted, would impose a back-door version of the discredited "Fairness Doctrine" upon America's airwaves.

Our opponents determination to take Rush and the others off the air demonstrates the critical importance of talk radio .Rush and the others allow us to know what is going on in Congress in time to do something about it. Had the FCC's stealth "Fairness Doctrine" been in place in 2006, amnesty for illegal aliens would have passed easily.

The FCC's stealth Fairness Doctrine regulations seek "to ensure that broadcasters serve their communities, especially traditionally underserved audiences," such as non-English speakers, whether or not these people actually exist.

The FCC's proposed regulations also contain a new requirement that all "licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards." These advisory boards "should include representatives of all segments of the community."

Such a requirement would empower self-appointed "community leaders," such as representatives of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) or the Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), to discourage commercial radio stations from airing discussions of controversial matters such as the costs of illegal immigration or the meaning of jihad.

Fans of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr.James Dobson and other syndicated radio talk shows need to stand up against these proposed FCC regulation or watch our favorite hosts taken off the air in the name of encouraging "cultural diversity."

English First has established a web site, http://www.keeprushontheair.com,
containing the relevant FCC documents and a citizen's petition to the FCC
that I hope you will sign. If you have already signed our petition (over 1,000 Americans have done so), please ask your friends and neighbors to sign our petition as well. Thank you for your time and for doing your part. Your comments or complaints are welcome. E-mail them to me at jbouletATenglishfirst.org (replace AT with @).

You can donate to support the work of English First at https://www5.clearlight.com/english/join.htm.

Jim Boulet, Jr.
Executive Director
English First
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
(703) 321-8818 (voice)
http://www.englishfirst.org (web)

Poll Results

I asked you if enough was being done to stop illegal immigration. Your response came through loud and clear! 86% of you said you wanted stopped now. 10% of didn’t think it was an important issue, and the remaining 4% thought we were already doing enough. Now, only if our so-called “leaders: in Washington would listen to us.