Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

So Much for One Country, Indivisible

By

This is for anyone who thinks the Ron Paulists of the world are sane.

The country elects a fairly moderate, black President and Ron Paul’s talking about succession and how “American” it would be to divide the union. Hmm…

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. As proof that it’s not un-American for a state to secede from America, Paul notes that the original American colonies seceded from England.

    <

    p>Think about that.  They seceded from England.  Their action was therefore anti-England, or, if you like, un-English.  It follows that seceding from America is anti-America, or un-American.  This conclusion, inescapable for normal humans, seems to escape the good doctor.

    <

    p>I also like his dig at the Pledge of Allegiance — he says that it was written by a socialist, and that maybe real Americans shouldn’t be so psyched about saying it after all.  Didn’t conservatives like the Pledge of Allegiance back in the day?

    • Think about that.  They seceded from England.  Their action was therefore anti-England, or, if you like, un-English

       

      <

      p>Saying that the Secession from Britain made them de-facto anti-british isn’t true.  Think about it.  Say Britain had allowed them to secede – would they have then attacked other British holdings they didn’t originally lay claim to?  Would they have put all British citizens in the new colonies on trial?  The more probable outcome would have been that the US would have established reasonable trade and diplomatic relations with their former country.  Rather than the secession being anti-british, the more honest way of putting it would be pro-american.  

      <

      p>What about the civil war?  Both sides were American.  So were the southerners, who were Americans, simultaneously for and against themselves?  

      <

      p>You’re twisting Ron Paul’s words just to praddle on that he’s stupid.  He’s asserting that the act of secession from a power that the populace asserts to be dictatorial or no longer vested in the interests of the people is what is American.  

      <

      p>What would be un-american, in theory, about Texas voting to secede from the union, having that vote pass and secession win, and then seceding?  Would it be their assertion of independence or the democracy part that offends you so?

      • I wouldn’t have pegged you as an apologist for these secession-minded wackos.  But ya learn something new every day.

        • and if the people of Texas voted to secede, I would defend that.

          <

          p>Moot point, given such an act would be opposed by 75% of them according to Rasmussen.

          • And I stand behind the fact that if the British had respected the right of the colonists to secede from the empire, then normal relations would have came in rather short order.  

            • The point is that the British did not “respect” the colonists’ desire for independence.  And to pretend that the Declaration is merely pro-American, instead of being also stridently anti-British, is absurd.

              <

              p>

              The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

              [There follows the familiar extremely long litany of charges against the British government.]

              In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

              Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

              <

              p>Texans who want to secede may be pro-Texas, but they assuredly are also anti-American.

          • To justify their actions, it sounds to me like Jefferson may have been relying on a right he (and by extension, they) felt was inherent in natural law:

            <

            p>

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

            • Talk about cherry-picking — why not emphasize the words that say “… all men are created equal”, and use that as justification to reinstate the sexist treatment of women that the same Southern culture also embraces. When were women given suffrage in Texas? When were women allowed to own property? Can a husband, in Texas, be prosecuted for raping his wife when she says “no” and he goes ahead anyway?

              <

              p>The document you quote was viewed as treasonous by the English, and a war was fought because of it.

              <

              p>Is that what you advocate here?

              • Hardly—this was the very basis on which Jefferson posited his entire argument:  that in natural law, a la Lockean natural law, there exists an inherent right of the people to alter or abolish the government that becomes destructive of the ends he states before it (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) and establish a new form of government that, in essence, does what the people wants it to do.  He was basically pleading a case to the world that British law was preventing Americans from exercising their natural law rights, and, because of that, the colonies had a right to separate from the British.  In essence, Jefferson was saying that yes, there is a right to throw off an oppressive government, and that right can be found in natural law.  Clearly the Founders wanted the rest of the world to think that their revolution was “legal,” not just the actions of a bunch of hot-heads.  Why do you think they wanted to do that?  So those other nations would be more willing to lend us support, military and otherwise, of course.

                <

                p>No kidding it was viewed as treasonous by the British.  But not all British, for there were indeed British people who thought the colonists were right.  

                <

                p>I’m not advocating anything here except for the notion that Paul’s not entirely incorrect.  He’s not nearly correct, however, because the Constitution doesn’t provide for a right of secession (even though, as he points out, New England certainly explored giving it a shot before the Civil War).  But the “right to secede” surely exists for humanity; it’s just that to make the “case” for it, you have to appeal to a higher law than, say, the law that governs a particular nation-state.

                <

                p>In essence, however, it’s a silly argument, because to secede requires military force.  If you’re going to secede, you have to shoot your way out.  If you fail, you’re a traitor, and you’ll be hung from the yardarm.  If you succeed, legality matters not a flying fig.

      • un-American to want to see the union torn asunder, Joe. Would that make such a person inherently a bad person? I deem Ron Paul, as well as many like him, a “bad person” for reasons wholly unrelated to his secessionist whistle blowing — such as his bigotry. But the point is that anyone who seeks to tear apart a country is inherently against that country — anyone who seeks to remove their state from America is inherently un-American.

        <

        p>These very same fringe conservatives had some good advice back in the day that they should, perhaps, consider for themselves today: don’t like this country? We were told to move to Canada — perhaps Canada may not be where they want to live, though. Maybe they should try Iran? The point being: If Deval Patrick were talking about this in 2006, Fox News would have started a lynching campaign.

        <

        p>I’m glad that the fringe right is finally showing their true colors, though. For all their patriotic country music, their I’m Proud to be an American bullshit, it’s their way or the highway, democracy be damned (America did just vote for the President, after all). The fact that you’re defending them amazes me.

        <

        p>Secession doesn’t lead to happily ever afters, it leads to strife and civil war. If I no longer wanted to be a part of the union, I wouldn’t call for its demise — I’d leave. Eight years of George Bush, quite likely the worst president ever, didn’t make me do that. A few months of Barack Obama, for the fringe right, would? What does that say about the Republican base? And why are these people up in arms now, when they weren’t from 1992-2000? The answer to those questions speaks sad volumes and, if I were a Republican, would make me feel a little dirty inside.  

            • But O’Reilly does suck, makes a ton of shit up, and a tenuous grasp on reality.

              <

              p>Not to mention, Gorafalo is just a change-the-subject tactic ’cause Edgar is incapable of refuting Ryan’s very strong comment.

              <

              p>Cui gives a shit about Janeane Garofalo? If Garofalo so bothers Edgar or anyone else, that person can start a new thread discussing why she does or does not suck.

          • called for succession? Did she at some point?

            <

            p>I only know Garofalo from several movies and maybe one or two interviews — so I’m not very familiar with her political work. That said, I doubt she’s called for splitting up this country.

            <

            p>More to the point, I’m less bothered about the calls for succession and more bothered by why those people are calling for it. As I said, they didn’t call for it during the Clinton years, but it only took a few months of our nation’s first black President for them to call for it today. In addition, I’m disturbed by the blatant hypocrisy coming from the are-you-American-enough, flag-waving crowd, those who saw fit to question half of America’s patriotism for 8 years and now, months later, are beginning to ring to bells of succession. It’s bizarre, it’s racially motivated and, yes, it’s un-American.  

              • Why weren’t these people up in arms about succession during Bill Clinton’s regime?

                <

                p>Why are they suddenly talking succession for the first time since an American President was elected who wanted to free the slaves?

                <

                p>There are many contexts here, but racial politics is one of them. Ron Paul has a history of bigotry. It shouldn’t be a shock that many of his teabaggers feel the same way.  

                • The following is from wikipedia: “Shortly afterwards, The New Republic released many previously unpublicized quotations attributed to Paul in James Kirchick’s “Angry White Man” article.[118] Kirchick accused Paul of having made racist, sexist, and derogatory comments geared towards African Americans, women, and the LGBT community.[119] Kircheck also accused Paul of possessing “an obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry.”[119]

                  <

                  p>Responding to the charges in a CNN interview, Paul denied any involvement in authoring the passages. In a press release, Paul’s campaign stated that the quotations came from other writers associated with Paul. Paul again denounced and disavowed the “small-minded thoughts,” citing his 1999 House speech praising Rosa Parks for her courage; he said the charges simply “rehashed” the decade-old Morris attack.[120] CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer expressed his disbelief that Paul would have made such statements during the interview.[121] Later, Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, also defended Paul.[122] Reason republished Paul’s 1996 defense of the newsletters,[123] but later reported evidence from “a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists” that Lew Rockwell had been the chief ghostwriter.[41]”

          • Garofalo hasn’t been elected to anything.  In this way it can’t be said that ‘the left’ ‘has’ Garofalo in the same way that ‘the right’ ‘has’ Paul.

        • and frankly, I am not for it.  That however, does not change that I would defend the democratic actions by which a state would vote to do so.  I’m not defending the fringe right because I don’t think this is a politically colored issue – I think it’s just the right of the people of ANY state, be it red or blue, to decide if they wanted their state to remain in the union or not.  It would be un-american to force them to for the sake of maintaining the union.  A marriage is a union, right?  Would the union mean anything if one person wanted a divorce and the other wouldn’t let them?

          • Um, no.  It’s not.  If you really mean that, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what America is.  Sorry, but that’s the truth.  When the states joined the union, they gave up certain aspects of their sovereignty.  Among them was the right to decide to pack their things and leave.  Do you really think that Texas, or for that matter Vermont, can hold a plebiscite and, if 50%+1 vote to leave, they’re out?  Really?

            <

            p>If you’re seriously interested in the details, as opposed to Glenn Beck’s talking points, here is a pretty good summary of the state of the law on secession.  Bottom line: while mutually agreed-upon secession might be doable, a state cannot legally secede against the wishes of the national government.

            <

            p>Any other federal laws you think the states should have the right to ignore if they feel like it?

          • It rips a country apart. We fought a civil war over this in which tens of thousands of people died on the battlefield in bloody weekend after bloody weekend.

            <

            p>If people don’t want to be American anymore, they have a very reasonable choice to make. Leave. There are other countries in this world they could choose to live in. Some of those countries would even give them free health care! By all means, go. But this country couldn’t sustain states deciding on succession because a moderately liberal, black President won. There would be blood.

            <

            p>The south fought for the right to succession over a hundred years ago and lost because an American President was elected who favored freeing black people. That war decided whether or not states could leave the union and, tens upon tens of thousands of dead people later, the answer was no. You can leave the nation, but you can’t take your state with you. As David said, when the united states was formed, individual states gave up certain rights. Those agreements can’t be undone, at least by a simple vote by plebiscite.  

            • you can’t allow [secession] … it rips a country apart

              <

              p>Quite the truism there, Ryan.

              <

              p>We fought a civil war over this in which tens of thousands of people died on the battlefield in bloody weekend after bloody weekend.

              <

              p>OK, but people only died because they fought. If the secession were peaceably allowed, there wouldn’t be any bloody weekends. (Weekends? Were Civil War battles not fought during the week? Serious question.)

              <

              p>I am, in principle, a big believer in self-determination. The nation owes obligations to the people, not the other way around. Does that make me crazy? (By the way, do note that I say in principle. There are always exceptions. I think, for example, that ending slavery was worth the Civil War.)

              <

              p>If there are enough of them (by which I mean at least half the population of the states involved, probably more), why shouldn’t they be allowed to go their own way? (Mind you, I really don’t think there are enough of them, for any reasonable definition of “enough”. This is a classic case of squeaky wheels and grease.) The only caveat I’d demand is completely open borders for a minimum of 25 years, to allow people to sort out which nation they’d want to be in.

              <

              p>But, like I said, I’m inclined to think this is all a big PR stunt. The radical right is so far out of power that this is the sort of thing they have to do and talk about to get attention and some small measure of power. “Give us some scraps or we take our ball and go home!”

              • I answered specifically, up thread, that wanting succession doesn’t necessarily make one a bad person. If we were talking about a bunch of hippy Vermontsters who wanted independence, while I’d disagree with them, I’d have a helluva lot more respect. What specifically bothers me about the Paulists of the nation is a) the hypocrisy — this is the flag-waving, morally preachy crowd and b) the bigotry. While there are many reasons why some people may want secession, it’s clear that for a lot of these people race has come into play. They weren’t making these demands, at least publicly and to this extent, when we had a white, southern democrat in office for 8 years. Lots of other caveats and factors come into play, of course, but I’ve yet to see a credible argument here or elsewhere that this isn’t a significant factor for a significant percentage of these people.  

      • First, there’s a big difference from the 13 colonies leaving the British Empire and Texas (or the Confederacy in 1861 for that matter) leaving the Union. Namely, we had no elected representation in the British Parliament and Texas, being a well-populated state, has plenty of representation in Congress. (Slaveholding states were actually over-represented relative to the enfranchised population thanks to the 3/5 compromise.)

        <

        p>Second, secession is in no way countenanced by the Constitution. The Constitution DOES provide for the admission of new states and even the creating of states from the territory of existing states. In this context, voluntary withdrawal from the Union is conspicuous by its absence. The people created the states and the nation separately and directly as evidenced by calling special ratification conventions rather than asking state legislatures to ratify the Constitution. Even the Articles of Confederation, which arguably was a creation of the states, is fully titled “The Articles of Confederation and PERPETUAL Union”.

    • First of all, the thirteen colonies weren’t “states” of England in the same way that the states of this nation are related to each other via the federal government.  The couldn’t really secede from a government they really weren’t part of in the first place (no taxation w/o representation ring a bell?).

      <

      p>The British North American colonies were, at best, distant cousins with England, used to fairly autonomous rule until the English started getting heavy-handed with them in the mid-18th century or so, mainly to help pay for war debt incurred in fighting with the French—fights in which their colonial cousins were expected to participate, too, at their own cost.  Popular notion has it that the English pretty much looked down their collective noses at their colonial cousins; we were, to them, bumpkins and uncultivated simpletons.

      <

      p>Separation from England wasn’t even a question for debate until 1776.  When Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill were fought, that was just New Englanders exerting their English rights as English New Englanders—not rebels trying to start their own country by “seceding” from England.  It was only after the fighting became so fierce that reconciliation with the motherland became unfeasible.

      <

      p>In essence, any talk of secession being “legal” is downright silly.  It doesn’t matter a bit whether it’s legal or not:  any nation-state with the will to secede and the muscle to back it up is going to secede, legal or not.  

      <

      p>Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
      Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

      <

      p>- Sir John Harrington

      <

      p>

  2. Jeb Bush gets elected in 2012, declares war on France, Iran, and Chad for made-up reasons. A Republican-dominated House of Reps goes along. The DOMA passes Federally and gay marriage is banned. Patriot Act 2 takes effect, and people start getting thrown in jail for criticizing Jeb Bush.
    Vermont tries to secede.
    Would this be Un-American?

    • I’d love to see the calculation that shows DC is more valuable to the Union than Texas.

      • what light was saying, though lightiris can certainly speak up for his/herself. Light didn’t seem to mind Texas leaving and DC becoming the 50th state. -2 2 senate republicans, +2 democratic ones. That’s what I took away from it, anyway.

        <

        p>Just for the record, I wouldn’t want to see Texas go, but DC should get its statehood. Dems will have Texas again within 10-20 years, anyway.  

  4. the same Southern racists who used this argument to start the Civil War and used the same argument against the civil rights movement today use this argument to again perpetuate their brand of bigotry, demagoguery, and scapegoating? Is it an accident that this same movement still agitates for flying the Confederate flag?

    <

    p>Calling this horse manure “patriotism”, or “freedom”, or anything similar really is putting lipstick on a pig.

    <

    p>I think the administration of President Obama is doing exactly the right thing when it describes such behavior as inciting domestic terrorism — because that is the simple truth.

      • The Republic of Vermont people started up their wagon long before Obama got elected. The same cannot be said for Chuck Norris and friends.

        • Why is it relevant when Vermont sought succession?  If you find Texas threats of succession to be un-American, is Vermont’s movement any different?

            • Seems the only clear bigotry is that certain Vermonters and Texans alike are utterly intolerant of opinions that differ from their own.  Each, equally bigoted.

                • Defined. A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.

                  <

                  p>Ok, in your world, what does it mean?

                • are more reliable sources than Wikipedia.
                  Merriam-Webster:

                  bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices  ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

                • What are you implying, that bigoted and racist have the same meaning? You’re wrong; read your own link.  

                  <

                  p>Bigot means what the dictionary says it means. Vermonters and the left fringe, and Texas and the right fringe want to secede for the same reason. The reason is that they’re both bigots, intolerant of ideas with which they don’t agree.  The only meaningful difference is that if Vermont seceded it would take months for anyone to notice.  

              • you equate differing views on socialism versus whether or not it’s only to persecute minorities as “equal” offenses, then, yes, you’re right… equally bigoted.

          • I see no problem with saying that.
            The only problem with Rick Perry saying that is that, for the last eight years, anyone who criticized America in any manner was “Anti-American”, and now that they do it, and threaten to secede, they don’t want to be called “anti-American” when it is so manifest, it’s ridiculous to assert otherwise.  When you embrace secession you should embrace anti-Americanism.  You can’t have it both ways.  I want to leave you and I love you…

  5. What I found interesting, when Paul posed the “WHAT IF?”.

    <

    p>Except it morphed into a “WHEN!, WHAT?”.

    <

    p>He looks straight at the camera, saying, “that time will come, when the dollar collaspes.” Maybe just below the shot, Paul is rubbing a crystal ball.

    <

    p>Tomorrow, I’ll have to head to The Common. I’m sure to find a few shabbily dressed preachers, up on their soapboxes, ranting, “Sheeple! The dollar will collapse! Render your vote to Ron Paul and be saved!”

    <

    p>Please note, those preachers’ pockets will be filled with teabags, hastily gathered from the ground a week ago.

    • is that Paul has been forecasting the collapse of the dollar for years and years. If that day does come, it won’t prove Paul to be prescient; it’ll just prove the old saw about broken clocks.

  6. I agree with Paul that it is good to discuss these issues. Personally, I think his contention that secession was an accepted alternative in the early days of the Republic is  dubious. Note that there is no provision for secession in the Constitution. Whatever these theoretical historical arguments, however, the Civil War established that secession is an act of rebellion against the United States.

    <

    p>Texas, however, has one of the weakest cases for secession of any state, because the other states (the United States) bought the land that is now Texas from Mexico after their victory in the Mexican War. (This followed the failed 1836-45 Texas Republic.) Wikipedia:

    <

    p>

    When Texas gained statehood, Mexico broke diplomatic relations with the United States. The United States claimed that Texas’ border stretched to the Rio Grande, citing the 1836 Treaties of Velasco. Mexico, never ratifying these treaties, claimed the Nueces River as its border. While the former Republic of Texas could not enforce its border claims, the United States had the military strength and the political will to do so. President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor south to the Rio Grande on January 13, 1846. A few months later Mexican troops routed an American cavalry patrol in the disputed area in what is called the Thornton Affair. Polk declared this incident an act of war. The first battles of the war were fought in Texas: the Siege of Fort Texas, Battle of Palo Alto and Battle of Resaca de la Palma. After these decisive victories, the United States invaded Mexican territory ending the fighting in Texas.[60]

    After a series of United States victories, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the two year war. In return, for US $18,250,000, Mexico gave the U.S. undisputed control of Texas, ceded the Mexican Cession in 1848, most of which today is called the American Southwest, and Texas’ borders were established at the Rio Grande.[60]

    • why they weren’t doing this through the 8 years of Clinton, but just months into Obama’s administration are talking succession, using similar lines we’ve heard as a country many times before. Surely, not all teabaggers are racist, but a lot of them are — and their racism is showing through by the lengths of which they’re willing to go, up to and including the very same flag-wavers now condoning secessionist talk. The whistle blows, my friend, even if it’s only heard by dogs.  

      • But there are some, like “Christian Exodus” who have been discussing secession for a much longer period of time. CE in particular, has a plan of getting every good Christian to move to South Carolina, which will then secede.

        <

        p>Apparently, they don’t think there are enough good Christians to warrant a larger state…

      • weren’t talking about this shit through 8 years of Clinton for dozens of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that the economy was generally good, the country was generally at peace, and we were reaping the “dividends” of winning the Cold War.  Obama, on the other hand, was elected at a time when horrible events were converging together to squeeze the shit out of the average American yeoman:  an economic nuclear bomb the likes of which we haven’t experienced since the Great Depression, rising unemployment and a dollar that’s decreasing in value, the exposure of incredible corruption and insider dealings in the financial industry and in the housing industry—leading to massive distrust of the government as a regulator and protector of money and rights, TARP, the Stimulus Package, not one but two fronts in a seemingly never-ending international war.

        <

        p>Get it?  Obama’s race has absolutely nothing to do with it, or, if it has anything to do with it, it’s a bunch of guys sitting around a 10 x 10 shed in Toothless, Arkansas that care about it.

        <

        p>  

        • Maybe you’re right, but, given that both mountains and molehills dwarfed the teabag extravaganzalette, the  participants might be so few that that bunch of guys from Toothless, AK constitute a powerful caucus within Red Rose Republic.

          <

          p>That plus, the Civil War and all have tended to associate secessionists with racism. Must have been the slavery thing.

  8. Sure most of your people are denied 4th amendment rights with the “Constitution Free Zone”.  Of course some citizens are more equal than others.  So, the politicians answer only to the wealthy.  If you get imprisoned without cause or charge, well, it makes you stronger.  These libertarians and progressives that believe in the inherent rights of man should have their noses rubbed in their rights by the upcoming “Obama Youth” security force.  

    <

    p>”The right to live free” is gone forever, and you better not gripe about it.  “Right to secede?”, where would all the dictatorships be if the people had the right to secede?

    <

    p>

    Kent Brockman: Ladies and gentlemen, uh, we’ve just lost the picture, but what we’ve seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over, ‘conquered’ if you will, by a master race of giant space ants. It’s difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthmen or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I’d like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.

      • between me and Lynne, I’ve coined a new term.  At least I haven’t heard it anywhere else.

        <

        p>”Bomb-shelter Republicans”.

        <

        p>It’s frightening how often it seems to be applicable as I observe the media and the internet.

      • stand up and fight for what they believe.  Let the contest determine who’s right.

        • Seems to me that the contest was in November and these people lost. They didn’t like the results, so now they want out. Funny how that works.  

  9. that when George Bush took the presidency, Democrats were told to get over it and move on, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, their talk is of revolution and secession.

    • At a fairly large design firm in downtown Boston.  When Bush won in 2004, the entire office, except for me, was ready to secede and create a new micro-nation.  For a few days I actually feared a lynching—a verbal one, of course, for people of a certain political persuasion seldom have the intestinal fortitude to back up their threats.  And one person actually made good on his word to leave the country.

      <

      p>It’s amazing how quickly your perception shifts once the side you support gains power.

      <

      p>And you people are failing to grasp the notion that it’s not just Obama’s election that’s fueling this talk.  It’s TARP, it’s the stimulus package, it’s the recession, it’s the financial oligarchy, it’s rising unemployment . . .

      • sure, the names change, but all of these government actions and economic transitions have happened a number of times in our country’s past.

        <

        p>Furthermore, it’s as if these things happened in the last 6 weeks.  TARP was a Bush program.  The recent financial problems can easily be traced back to the previous administration’s time period.  Unemployment has risen and fallen to be sure… it almost hit 10% in 1983/4; where were the pitchforks then?

        <

        p>

        <

        p>The hypothesis from the left is pretty straightforward: had McCain been elected our economic and budgetary situation wouldn’t be much different, but the teabaggers would be sipping it at home not marching in the parks.  Is it because Obama’s black?  Because he’s a Democrat?  Because he’s not a theocrat?  Because Fox News [sic] whipped them up to a frothy white mess?  I have no idea.  So they’re mad as hell and they’re not going to take it any more.  What exactly their mad about varies widely and is rarely expressed clearly.  What they’ll do to not take it any more is also unclear.

        <

        p>It’s clear that they came off as crazies.  It’s clear that they don’t have the numbers to win an election.  It’s clear that they’re unhappy.  What’s not clear is what their alternative vision of America really is, or whether or not more than a small portion of Americans share that vision.

        • It’s not as if these things have all suddenly happened in the last six weeks.  If you truly believe this, it behooves you to learn more about your political “enemies.”

          <

          p>The hardcore right disliked Bush almost as much as the entire left wing disliked Bush.  Why?  Because Bush let down conservatives on several different fronts . . . the Dubai Port Deal fiasco, the nomination to the USSC of his dopey crony from Texas, TARP . . . a whole host of reasons.  And if the hardcore right disliked Bush, they loathed John McCain.  For many right wingers, McCain wasn’t even a “hold your nose” vote—they stayed home.  That’s one of the reasons your side won.  

          <

          p>The point of this?  The hardcore right has always had secession in mind if the shit hit the fan.  Doesn’t matter who was sitting in the Oval Office—it goes far beyond the laundry of the sitting President.  It’s all about restoring what they believe are the proper principles of the government:  both pubbies and dems have failed them.  That’s the point—if it were about electing Republicans instead of seceding, there’d be no talk of secession, but talk of stoking up the GOP.

          <

          p>Honestly, you guys know nothing about the people you oppose if you think this kind of stuff just bubbled up because Obama was elected President.  I know all this from being a 10+-year participant on Free Republic, (www.freerepublic.com).  As a libertarian over there, I’m pretty much considered a commie.

          <

          p>

          • Specifically:

            The point of this?  The hardcore right has always had secession in mind if the shit hit the fan.  Doesn’t matter who was sitting in the Oval Office—it goes far beyond the laundry of the sitting President.  It’s all about restoring what they believe are the proper principles of the government:  both pubbies and dems have failed them.  That’s the point—if it were about electing Republicans instead of seceding, there’d be no talk of secession, but talk of stoking up the GOP.

            <

            p>I believe this is absolutely true. I also suggest that nobody in their right mind (pun intended) believes this can be done without violence. I’m very glad to see President Obama’s administration taking the threat seriously. The Civil War was fought and won over this, and the outcome was clear — even if extremists in the deep south have never accepted it. I hope that violence can be avoided. I’m sorely tempted to say “Good riddance”. As an American and a patriot, I firmly believe that such a response is wrong. While I am a firm believer in the First Amendment rights of all us, including speech I find abhorrent, I also believe that line should and will be drawn at armed rebellion.

            <

            p>Whatever the merits of the argument, revolution is always “treason” to whatever system is the target. One side’s “freedom fighter” is the other side’s “terrorist”.

            <

            p>I think the extreme right is dangerous precisely because of all this.

            • are potentially dangerous, but I can see how you might be more afraid of extremists on the right, because they’re the ones most likely to have the firepower to back up what they say.  But honestly, I think all this talk of secession is just that—talk.  Empty blather.

          • and I understand that lots of conservatives loathed many Bush policies.

            <

            p>Yet, short of the Ron Paulies out there, I never saw the outrage manifest itself in public.  Why weren’t they protesting at the RNConvention?  In front of the RNC?  Why wait until now?

            <

            p>What has changed in the past 4 months that pushed a million people from dissatisfied to showing up at a Tea Party?  I don’t think that economics have changed enough, nor has actual tax policy or other Federal policy.

            <

            p>

            <

            p>No, I think it’s fear.  It’s Obama the Muslim.  It’s Obama the extremist Christian.  It’s Obama the black man.  It’s Obama the not-like-us Hawai’ian.  It’s Obama the not-even-born-in-America man.  It’s God, guns, and gays.  It’s fist bumps.  It’s a guy better looking than me, married to a wife better looking than mine, with kids who behave better than mine do.  It’s a Harvard education.  It’s a pointy headed professor.  It’s pro-abortion, and it’s pro-spotted owl, and it’s pro-union.  He even did drugs as a young man.

            <

            p>When you watch Fox News, this is what you get.  You don’t get worried about silly facts like a tax cut for most Americans and a tax increase only if you make $250,000+.  Instead, you get a Fox reporter telling you that Obama is a fascist.  So yeah, people are afraid of irrational, often incorrect things.  Somehow, they weren’t worried enough about things like the debt, loss of civil liberties, or corporate welfare when Reagan, HW Bush, or W Bush pushed them through over a 20 year span.  Three months into Obama’s presidency though and they march?  Smells like irrational fear to me.

            • you didn’t see much of the outrage on the right manifest itself in public:

              <

              p>- The general mindset/personality type of the right isn’t one that takes to public protests like the left does.  The common joke on the right is that the reason the lefties stage such successful public spectacles is that they don’t have jobs to go to anways.

              <

              p>- For the media, it would have been a dog bites man story.  The left was already riled up over Bush and his policies—a bunch of righties getting their dander up over them would’ve been like a drop of water in the Atlantic Ocean.

              <

              p>- Righties are fairly tribal.  Yeah, they might not like what Bush was doing, or the GOP was doing, but they weren’t going to give the left the satisfaction of knowing that.

              <

              p>Honestly, I don’t think righties “fear” Obama at all.  You’re putting far too much emphasis on who Obama is vice what he’s doing.  

              • because what he’s doing doesn’t seem to warrant this kind of reaction when compared to metrics of Reagan, HW Bush, or W Bush.  With respect to your comment ” It’s TARP, it’s the stimulus package, it’s the recession, it’s the financial oligarchy, it’s rising unemployment…” — Obama doesn’t particularly distinguish himself from his predecessor, which, it’s worth pointing out, has frustrated plenty of lefties.

                <

                p>So if it isn’t the substance, my conclusion is that it’s the aesthetic.  They’re not afraid of Obama the man, they’re afraid of bogeymen real and imagined that come with the words President Obama.

                • You must pay attention to a different right wing than I do.

                  <

                  p>My theory is that you kind of want all this talk of secession to be about race/bigotry rather than substance, because that makes it easier for you to dismiss/marginalize.

                • It is the extreme rightwing that is talking about secession, and you’ve been arguing in support of that position here.

                  <

                  p>What “substance” is there to the bigoted rightwing position on gays?

                  <

                  p>The Democrats kicked out the racists and bigots after the 1968 convention, and where did they land? In the rightwing GOP — racist bigots like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

                  <

                  p>What “substance” was there to the “states rights” argument made prior to the Civil War? Are you seriously claiming that that was not racist? How about when Lester Maddox ran the same argument (along with the Confederate flag) up the flagpole? Why was the National Guard deployed in the deep south? Are you going to suggest that the Jim Crow laws that the Guard was sent to enforce were anything except racist?

                  <

                  p>Upthread, you accused the left of being unfamiliar with the rightwing “enemy”. I don’t know about anyone else, but I see the blog postings. I read the rants. How do you characterize the term “wetback”, and what community uses it?

                  <

                  p>If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it probably is a duck.

                • although I’m a southerner by birth.  States’ rights or no states’ rights, the central question in the first half of the 19th century was slavery, which is abhorrent to me, and should be abhorrent to every human being on planet Earth.  There is no defense of it, legal wrangling or otherwise.  

                  <

                  p>Period.

                  <

                  p>I think you err, however, when you try to apply the same flavor to the current secession ethos.  Just because the grandest secession attempt had racism at its core doesn’t mean all secession talk has racism as its core.  That we have an African-American President is a mere coincidence.  What Obama does matters far more than the color of his skin.  Like another poster said upstream, otherwise the kooks on the right would’ve been more riled up by Clinton.  But compared to Obama, Clinton is downright right-of-center.

                  <

                  p>Like I said upthread, I’m beginning to think your side wants this to be about racism, because if it is, it’s far easier to demonize it and dismiss it.

                  <

                  p>I’ve heard the term “wetback” used by all sorts of people, liberal and conservative alike.  You’re crazy if you think that the right is the source for all things racist.

                • I don’t think “my side” wants it to be about race. I’m sure I speak for many of my liberal colleagues in saying we’re more horrified at seeing signs of the racism infection after we hoped it’d been extirpated.

                  <

                  p>The teabaggery thing lacked any kind of central message and it also lacked numbers. So as I’ve said elsewhere, that left it open for its message to be the more outrageous signage bloggers could photograph.

                  <

                  p>We did get some doozies.

                  <

                  p>The racist sorts
                  will take their tea
                  with  bit of nostalgia
                  for Robert E. Lee.

                • I listed at least a dozen things.  Here, I’ll bullet point them for you:
                  * It’s Obama the Muslim.
                  * It’s Obama the extremist Christian.
                  * It’s Obama the black man.
                  * It’s Obama the not-like-us Hawai’ian.
                  * It’s Obama the not-even-born-in-America man.
                  * It’s
                      – God
                      – guns
                      – gays.
                  * It’s fist bumps.
                  * It’s a
                      – guy better looking than me
                      – married to a wife better looking than mine
                      – with kids who behave better than mine do
                  * It’s a Harvard education.
                  * It’s a pointy headed professor.
                  * It’s
                      – pro-abortion,
                      – pro-spotted owl
                      – pro-union.
                  * He even did drugs as a young man.

                  <

                  p>Now, of those, which are about being racist?  Well, black man, and perhaps even Hawai’ian.

                  <

                  p>So, who’s making it about race?  Well, it appears to be the guy who swears it’s not about race.  Doest thou protest too much?

                • silly “secession” talk on WHO Obama is vice what he’s done.

                  <

                  p>RE:  “Doest thou protest too much?”

                  <

                  p>Give me a break.

              • When Bush’s approval ratings were still above 40%, we didn’t hear anything about his not being a “real” conservative. The not-conservative-enough critique didn’t take off until he got really unpopular and the Republicans risked losing Congressional majorities — though I admit, this stuff is hard to trace.

                • far from the darling of the right.  The right feared he would be a soft Republican like his father.  McCain seemed well on his way to winning the whole thing until Bush push-polled him in South Carolina.

                  <

                  p>The wheels started coming off the bus big time with the Harriet Miers nomination, the Dubai Ports World deal, and the Kelo decision.  Also, the right was never very “happy,” say, with Bush’s non-handling of the illegal immigration issue.

      • If people really want to emigrate they’re welcome to, though I prefer staying and trying to improve home.  Breaking off territory is the kind of secession which is truly objectionable.

  10. Craziness carries a strange fascination: It defies belief. It imitates sanity. It cries for refutation, refutation, and more refutation. But if one accepts it for what it is, then one has a lot of other questions to move on to.

    <

    p>So a lot of conservatives are saying wacky things. What does this mean?

    • Are the loonies lounder than the mass of conservatives? Or has looniness infected the majority of them?
    • In what ways are they dangerous?
    • What if anything should be done?

  11. Intelligence agencies did 911
    Timothy McVeigh did not do Oklahoma City Murrah building
    Several secret global organizations run the world
    There are 129+ deep underground military cities
    We have had several treaties with extra-terrestrials
    679 people work on the moon

  12. the one where they split from Mexico, was also in defense of slavery.

    John Quincy Adams and northern antislavery activists spoke what everyone knew in 1836–that the Texas Revolution was about slavery. Adams said in Congress that “the war now raging in Texas is a Mexican civil war and a war for the re-establishment of slavery where it was abolished.” Texas historian William C. Davis says that “you have the same contradiction [that you do in] the Civil War, when you’ve got several million Confederate citizens and soldiers preaching all the rhetoric of liberty while owning 3 million slaves.”

    <

    p>Via Lawyers, Gun$, and Money.  

Archives