Interesting piece in the Phoenix by Mike Miliard:
“What kind of revolution appeals most to you?” read the now-deleted poll question on Sean Hannity’s message board: “Military Coup, Armed Rebellion, or War for Secession?”
The next four to eight years are gonna be some fun!
Barely two months into the Obama administration, wing-nuts across the land are frothing at the mouth, talking feverishly of secession, violent revolution, tax revolt, “going Galt,” and national divorce. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so creepy.
We all had a good laugh this past December when Igor Panarin, dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s academy for future diplomats, predicted that the financial crisis would eventually lead to widespread unrest, martial law, and, by 2010, a civil war in the US – the end result of which would be a motley collection of rump states like “Atlantic America” and the “Texas Republic,” that then glom onto countries such as Canada and Mexico. It’s an absurd idea.
Or is it? Perusing some of the sheer insanity spewed on rightist blogs, message boards, and comment threads – the pitchfork-shaking anger directed at this so-called socialist government – one has to wonder just what’s percolating in this country. Maybe the big break-up is coming sooner than we think?
More here:
http://thephoenix.com/Boston/N…
It’s an interesting piece, and I especially enjoyed the part about America ceding power to a “North American Union.” And here I though the free-marketers liked NAFTA…
<
p>Although, I do have to hope this round of right-wing nuttery doesn’t inflame another Timothy McVeigh who lashes out against the federal government with more than just resolutions.
The talk of secession is all the rage on the right wing boards. Whether it amounts to more than talk remains to be seen, of course, but I doubt it will involve domestic terrorism. McVeigh was an isolated whackjob who took a shot at the Feds. The tenor of the secessionists these days, however, seems more peaceful, and less conspiracy-theorist, than it did back in those days—at least to my ears.
<
p>Witness, also, the recent popularity of introducing declarations of state sovereignty in various state legislatures throughout the Union:
<
p>
<
p>Here’s the WND post: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/i…
<
p>
Where does the “revolution” come in? If some states are declaring their sovereignty as provided by the US Constitution, are they in any violation of the Constitution? Are the people of those states “Whackjobs” or terrorists? How does reaffirmation of the provisions of the US Constitution become “nuttery”?
<
p>Last I checked, I was a citizen of Massachusetts and the United States. Both entities have Constitutions and provide for certain rights granted, not by the government, but by the very existance of the citizen. Should a good Democrat deny rights under either Constitution? Should a good Democrat deny human rights under law?
<
p>Gee, as a leftist-pinko ACLU member, you got me thinking I should join the Libertarians.
Most of all. The encroaching power of the Federal government, that is, and some people, in some states, wish to re-assert the sovereignty of their states as a method to combat that. Symbolically, perhaps . . . for now.
<
p>But I wonder if the Davies J-Curve Theory of Revolutions will hold true. Especially in this economic climate, there appears to be a widening gap between “this is what you want, this is what you get” (tip o’ the hat to Johnny Lydon). When the delta gets big enough, will the apple cart tip?
In light of Massachusetts rights, such as same sex marriage and others, would it not be prudent to remind all of our sovereignty?
I say we sign on. We led the pack in 1765. Let’s pony up now.
Introducing a bill is very easy, you just need one lawmaker.
Even the Bushy right wing is laughing at these things for now.
They should be careful. Chuck Norris may not like being laughed at. [Warning – link to Wingnut Daily]
I wonder hoe the conversation went between Benjamin Franklin and his son.
<
p>Thomas Gage thought it was all just a big joke—until they ran his ass out of Boston.
<
p>Maybe it’s a big joke. It will be a big joke, until small acts of revolt light the fuze for a larger national uprising. But that can’t happen in USA. Just go to a gun store and attempt to buy a furearm or ammuntion. One problem, you can’t buy any—-it’s sold before they put in on the shelves. Gee that’s odd.
<
p>Let unemployment get above 10%, increase taxation, spend more taxpayers money on BS, have congress enact more ex pots fact and attainder laws, enactive more restrictive laws against the American population. Continue to threaten to modify the 1st and 2nd Amendment. There is more than one SCOTUS justice that thinks there is something amiss in USA. The pressure in the boiler is building.
<
p>Keep playing the fiddle.
Three. Volokh conspiracy, Andrew Sullivan, and Ross Douthat. I guess that means it will soon be two.
the US breaks up into. I will go a bit further and say within four years. One can not attack every endeavor related to life and then expect the empire to continue. The US goes down as globalization comes up.
… devolution is an outcome from globalization. When I was living in Quebec I tended to be sympathetic to the Quebecois and their desires to leave Canada. They lost me however when they would only signify their fight for cultural reasons. The economic, political, and cultural effects of globalization put pressure on a citizenry – in some cases we have seen a movement towards devolved political boundaries, autonomous regions, etc. I argued that if the Quebecois wanted to become their own country they had to entertain the argument for all the realms in which they were “under attack.”
<
p>The push for devolution in our union isn’t implausible I’d argue. Preferable I wouldn’t argue, though the square states do tend to vote contrary to what I’d hope for. Had the Bush years continued via McCain/Palin I would’ve suggested that it wouldn’t have been a bad idea to keep it in the back of our minds that we too consider finding a way out. Perhaps New England floating off back to Queen’s England.
<
p>More importantly though in my opinion is after we can hold our snickers over President Norris of Texas, is really trying to figure a way out to put us back together. I don’t think for second there aren’t really really deep schisms that make it increasingly difficult for us to even be politically/economically productive anymore. I don’t see any good suggestions though, not without being sneered at anyway. For example I ask for more regulations on the economy so that speculation capitalism doesn’t destroy it altogether and get called a socialist.
<
p>
You name the dollar amount and the odds. My only request is that you put up $100. I’ll put a lien on my house for the bet I’m so confident you’re 2 or 3 beers short of a six pack on this one.
don’t underestimate the feelings in JesusLand. They believe there is a deep schism with the left on multiple fronts—economic, political, social, you name it. To put it plainly, they hate you guys.
Middle America hates being told what they will drive for an automobile, what they may or may not say, what marriage is, how much they will pay in taxes and to whom, how they will govern themselves, what they can eat etc ad nauseum. Middle America chafes at “big government” just as the colonies did in 1776. I don’t want government telling me how to run my life. I have done very well for three score and four thank you. Just like the colonial militia, I am
have about reached the point where the pot is about to boil. Don’t piss down my back and tell me it is raining out. If you don’t think that there are millions of very angry Americans out there–think again.
does “middle America” equal “deep South”.
<
p>Are you advocating for this sort of revolution by any chance? You seem sort of keen on it.
Did you ever read Cconfederates in the Attic
<
p>I am referring to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Confeder…
<
p>I read it long ago, and have been a civil war buff and a member of the Gettysburg Foundation for a long time.
<
p>The fulminations and pressures you are trying to stir the pot over are not new, and do not threaten the union, for all that they are “real”.
You name the dollar amount and the odds. My only request is that you put up $100. I’ll put a lien on my house for the bet I’m so confident you’re 2 or 3 beers short of a six pack on this one.
How can these people justify their sentiments, but also claim to be the most patriotic? Wasn’t this the same crowd most vocally complaining that Obama didn’t wear a flag pin on his lapel?
that being “patriotic” was loving America. One can love the concept of “America,” whatever that is, without supporting its current government, especially when you think its current government is subverting the very notion of “America” itself.
I wasn’t terribly supportive of the government of the last eight years myself. On a really worked-up day you might have even gotten me to say their policies weren’t American. Subverting the Bill of Rights with regard to wiretapping, due process, etc. comes to mind. However, never did I or would I advocate seccession or violently overthrowing the government.
say the same thing, so take all this secessionist mumbo-jumbo for what it’s worth.
The Leftists in USA swore that their patriotism was more valid than any other—they were saving America from itself. As someone once observed: one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Keep pushing, but expect a pushback. Do you think in 1860 that anyone was ruminating about a civil war. All it takes is a Ft Sumter or Lexington Green. Another thought to keep in mind. Once the ball starts to roll—there is zero to stop it.
You really believe this junk?
<
p>No wonder you all voted for Bush…
<
p>”Do you think in 1860 that anyone was ruminating about a civil war.”
<
p>Uh yeah, probably, given the atmosphere at the time.
<
p>Again, I ask you…are you advocating for armed revolution?