The illusion has been revealed: the strings are now visible.

When Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said she would reject nearly half of the federal stimulus money, she was lauded by conservatives. But she was also brutally attacked by liberals who claimed she was putting her state’s well-being in jeopardy just to make a political statement.

In March of this year, she said that she would only accept 55% of the federal economic stimulus money, because “we are not requesting funds intended to just grow government.” Palin reiterated that, in her opinion, the Federal Government had “too many strings attached” and accepting the money “would create unsustainable burdens on the state government once the federal money ran out.”

The greedy guts pols in Alaska's Legislature, however, wanted the “free money”. They “conducted more than 20 public hearings on the federal stimulus package, and legislative leaders said they couldn't find any of the strings attached to the funds that Palin had warned about.”

So liberals laughed and clapped and nearly broke their arms slapping themselves on the back with self-congratulatory praise when Palin finally gave in and accepted almost all of the money.

But today we hear that the Obama administration is threatening the state of California with rescinding all of the federal bailout money if the Schwarzenegger administration does not restore wage cuts to unionized home healthcare workers.

Faced with a budget shortfall in the tens of billions of dollars, the California government must find cuts to reduce their deficit, or face collapse. The legislators there decided to cut the wages from $12.10 to $10.10 per hour, which would save California $74 million. But the Obama administration, being heavily indebted to Unions, is now violating California’s sovereignty and limiting the actions the state can take to restore its fiscal health.

Strings? What strings?

Perhaps California will be the next state, following Texas and Oklahoma, to reiterate its state sovereignty.

Are we headed toward a second civil war?

I can’t express how worried I am—and I think you should be, too. We have a very serious problem, it goes beyond parties. We are in grave danger, it’s not an exaggeration, not just right-wing fear mongering. The constitutional violations keep mounting, starting with some of the ones the liberals worried about (such as abuse of executive privilege, warrantless wiretaps, a move toward a police state, pre-emptive military strikes), but the conservatives are also correct that the uncontrolled expansion of the government, the massive spending, the intent to control the means of production, banks etc. We are sliding toward a fascist state, I never believed we’d get to this point but over the past 15 years a slow slide has converted into a rapid decent. I worry about what will happen, what kind of country this can become for my kids.

I’ve been mocked and ridiculed for saying that we might be on the way to a civil war, because it sounds insane to say that. But the radical increase in military-class gun and ammunition sales indicates that there is a massive movement building to arm up in preparation for civil unrest. Yesterday’s declaration of state sovereignty by the Texas governor is serious business. If other states join the call, a movement toward secession may start. That will be the rallying cry and I have no doubt that tens of thousands of armed volunteers will respond, flocking to Texas. If Texas makes a move in that direction, you’ll see Alaska join. I hear that the people are talking openly of a revolt. They are increasing their arsenals, organizing, and preparing for a major conflict. The Tea Parties are a symbolic and peaceful action, but we must keep in mind the historical significance: in colonial days, these were the acts that galvanized the colonists into rebellion.

The spark that triggered open warfare was the “shot heard round the world”. To review: the British government had levied heavy taxes to pay for the French and Indian War, which had just ended. These taxes impacted the people heavily on goods they wanted and needed desperately. In protest, they organized rebellious acts such as the Boston Tea Party, dumping British goods into the harbor—a criminal act of civil resistance. The British got worried, and made moves to disarm the colonists, and formed a plan to seize the provincial stores of munitions at Concord. Spies warned the colonists of the impending action, resulting in the famous ride of Paul Revere. The Minutemen turned out to resist, the British fired on them, and the outrage spread across the colonies, resulting in the Revolutionary War.

The Constitution was written with these events in mind, hence the Second Amendment: the people are the militia who has the right to remain armed to defend against tyrannical governments.

Today’s conditions are shaping up very similarly. The outrage is deepening and spreading. Even the Federal government appears to be worried; that’s why they published the 9-page report warning of “right wing extremists”. The appearance of “tea parties” and the creation of groups such as “Minutemen” along the US-Mexico border are cultural reverberations of the previous conflict that are gaining ground. We should never ignore those. In 1775, Colonists dressed as Indians at the Boston Tea Party. Why is that important? It was a symbolic image evoking the recently ended French and Indian wars. At that time, it must have been an outrageously provocative act, because it showed a kind of solidarity with the Indians who had fought against the British.

The Russian analysts who are predicting a split within the United States are not far off. Oil rich states like Texas and Alaska really have very little interest in being part of the United States. The citizens love the country, and would like to stay a part of it, but only as long as it continues to resemble the United States of America as described in the Constitution. Unfortunately, as our government continues to morph into a “fascist state”, the citizens of more traditional, conservative states will begin to feel less solidarity with it.

Keep in mind, there will be massive support in the South among whites to revive the confederacy: the Confederate outrage against federalism is alive and well. In the South this will lead to a horrendous race war, because the blacks will obviously react fearfully to this movement, but they won’t just migrate to other states.

Here’s a prediction: the outrage we are witnessing now is going to grow exponentially. It will be focused on the two parties equally, opening an opportunity for third party candidates. Initially, most people are happy with that notion. The common thought is that we need a fresh approach; “we have to break the backs of the two parties”. But the benefit of two parties is to consistently promote centrist candidates. As much as I dislike Obama, as much as you disliked Bush, it can get worse, MUCH worse. This is how Hitler, Mussolini, Chavez were elected; the electorate vote was not split in two, but in thirds or even quarters. So you can actually elect a president in that case with as little as 34% of the voting electorate. How easy is it to get one-third of the electorate radicalized?