 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 4, 2007 at 09:44:45
Several States Are Discussing Secession From The United States by Justanothercoverup Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
 
|
When you read the headline of this brief story, it’s reminiscent of what occurred prior to the beginning of the Civil War. The news came as a surprise to me, as I wasn’t aware there was a “Secessionist” movement in the United States, but there it is, right before your eyes. What’s even more startling are the reasons the states wish to dissolve their partnership with the Union, and some of it actually makes sense: Secessionists meeting in Tennessee By BILL POOVEY, Associated Press WriterWed Oct 3, 3:15 AM ET In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions — New England and the South — are sitting down to talk.
Tired of foreign wars and what they consider right-wing courts, the Middlebury Institute wants liberal states like Vermont to be able to secede peacefully.
That sounds just fine to the League of the South, a conservative group that refuses to give up on Southern independence. MORE
When you look at the reasons for which they want to secede, it’s crystal clear that many of them/us are tired of living under oppression; These are a few of the reasons cited:
save themselves from an overbearing federal government.
If allowed to go their own way, New Englanders “probably would allow abortion and have gun control,” Hill said, while Southerners “would probably crack down on illegal immigration harder than it is being now.”
a fringe movement that gained new traction because of the Iraq war, rising oil prices and the formation of several pro-secession groups.
disillusioned by the Iraq war and federal imperialism, share the idea of states becoming independent republics.
Right now, they are labeled as “fringe groups”, but as government oppression grows stronger, their membership and supporters are growing, and it’s a concept I had never thought about before. Now, after reading the article, I’ve given it some serious thought - and while it’s as radical an idea of any I’ve heard, what better way to send Congress and President Bush/Cheney a message that will come across loud and clear!
The general public is sick and tired of an ultra-conservative government that is bent on imperialism, believe in infringing on their own citizens freedoms and rights, and have driven the nation close to bankruptcy. Now that it’s obvious we have an ultra right-wing Supreme Court dominated by right-wing justices, Americans can expect a further erosion of their rights, and a Court that believes in unfettered Presidential power rather than the principles this country was based upon; The separation of church and state is dead, and whether we like it or not, the coming opinions from the SCOTUS will no doubt restrict our lives and freedoms even more, even though many of us don’t share those same right-wing radical Christian values, their morality will be shoved down our throats whether we like it or not!
The U.S. was talking about partitioning Iraq, and if they view that as “a budding democracy”, then what the President believes is good enough for the Iraqis should be good enough for America! Can you imagine being able to move to a state where the right-wing Christians had no voice? Neo-conservatives would relocate to the states that were pro-Bush, and the the radical Christians and Neo-conservatives would be able to impose their will on anyone in the state they chose to - and the rest of us could live in freedom and peace…
Imagine the individual states building their own economies, and if corporate America wanted a piece of the pie, they would have to reinvest in that state rather than outsourcing everything to countries that will work for peanuts that are breaking the American economy. It’s ironic, but if we allowed all of the right-wing warmongers and fundamentalists to have their own states, when terrorists struck - it would probably be in those areas inhabited by the hate-mongers rather than bombing innocent Americans.
Imagine a state completely inhabited by right-wing Christians; they could censor everything, bash gays (who would quickly relocate to liberal states) until ultimately, all they will have to censor or criticize is themselves. You have to wonder where the Mega-Preachers will find their hookers in such a society, but in that regard, maybe they’ll pass a law or make it an 11th Commandment that thou shalt share your wife with the pastor… Oh, and they could make the 10% tithing mandatory, on top of the regular state taxes, and the American Taliban would grow and flourish, until ultimately, many began to flee to the free states, remembering how sweet freedom really was, and leave the fanatics to their own. They might even return to true Christianity, all of whom would be welcomed by Liberal and Progressive states. It’s those who wish to impose their ideology on others that we are trying to get away from, but true Christians are a boon to any society!
1 | 2
http://justanothercoverup.com/
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
| 18 comments |
|
I Like It!
Sound thoughts that are right up my alley :) by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 11:33:05 AM  (0+)
|
|
See what I mean?
UPDATE: Today, when I returned from the Dr.’s Office, I found this on BUZZFLASH. Like I said, we can expect a right-wing Supreme Court to impose their morality on the general population: Court Leaves Ala. Sex Toy Ban Intact Oct 1, 3:57 PM (ET) By PHILLIP RAWLS MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a challenge to Alabama’s ban on the sale of sex toys, ending a nine-year legal battle and sending a warning to store owners to clean off their shelves. An adult-store owner had asked the justices to throw out the law as an unconstitutional intrusion into the privacy of the bedroom. But the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, leaving intact a lower court ruling that upheld the law. Sherri Williams, owner of Pleasures stores in Huntsville and Decatur, said she was disappointed, but plans to sue again on First Amendment free speech grounds. LINK Why does the State of Alabama or the Supreme Court have to dictate their morality on a population that is used to freedom? Aren’t they aware we withstand much of their waste and mis-management because its become part of our free society, but take away the freedom, and what’s left? JAC by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 1:10:51 PM (0+)
|
|
I LIKE ITTOO BUT HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN ?
by Kenneth Briggs (186 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 142 comments [6 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 1:12:31 PM (0+)
|
|
I love clam chowder and Lobster
I would move there, Dennis Kucinch would be a great President of the new republic of New England! by DinahMason (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 2:07:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Disunited as ever
If you haven’t read Joel Garreau’s book, “The Nine Nations of North America,” I strongly recommend you do. What we call united states are united in physical proximity and in most instances individual states may belong to at least 2, 3 or even 4 dissociated groups or nations. I’m not advocating succession, but understanding this phenomena might make it easier to understand why this so called united nation of ours can behave so screwey. by Dave Kisor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 311 comments [40 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 2:22:28 PM (0+)
|
|
I hope congress grows some B@LL$
If congress had the B@LL$ to stand down this neo-convict Bush and his cabal of cretins we wouldn’t need to secede from the union. We are supposed to be in a constitutional democracy a land of laws that protect the minority from the majority when they are wrong. Bush though is ignoring the laws on the books and some of the courts are calling him on it. I only hope the congress will grow a spine and stand up to defend our constitution. by Michael Chavers (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 198 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 2:45:09 PM (0+)
|
|
You can't secede from something that does not exist.
Secession is cowardice in this context. Secession at the time of the Civil War was not. Half the country divided from the other, not single states that want to "govern themselves." You can't secede from an empire, so the mere mention of it is fantasy. The breakdown of the machine is as a whole, not in part. To prove my point I direct your attn. to the Black Panther Party carrying their guns into a public forum, which was a right. If you tried that now Blackwater would put you in a hole in Iraq at the behest of any member of government they have protected. Now I'm not saying anyone with a gun should be allowed in public forums, I'm merely showing that "rights" have been disappearing long before now. Secession is not going to do anything but single your state out for destruction first! This disadministration makes people disappear one way or another if you oppose them. Talking secession now in my book is simply cowardice. It's like starting your own game because your losing, instead of figuring out a strategy to win the game you decided to play in the first place. Instead of this trivial concept of secession maybe people ought to start insourcing their money away from the government by not paying their income taxes (which is voluntary to begin with, for those who don't believe that statement, look it up!) and let them fall flat on their collective faces. This is just a suggestion of one possible way to "let them know" what they already know and don't care about, obviously. I'm not saying it would work but it would be a start! So instead of fantasy talk about "secession from an empire" they should come up with tangible ways to be a thorn in this disadministrations side that might make a small difference in a big way. Good piece, thanks for bringing the rampant stupidity of some American states to light, it sure explains more to me about how we ended up in this mess in the first place! JR by Joe Rathbun (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 142 comments) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 7:37:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes states can secede legally
In comment to our esteemed gentleman's post here; note that the 14th amendment was passed in 1868. I have checked the dates of reconstruction which did not end from 1877 until 1900. The 14th amendment 3 and 4 gives information about 'insurrection' however it also made everyone US citizens. Admiral Raphael Semmes in his memoires stated he was a Citzen of Alabama, something unheard of today. Another thing is that when King George ruled during the period of the Revolution, which my ancestors fought in, he granted individual republics their independence. The USA came later, of course fully settled in 1868. However the manner in which the amendemnt passed was all wrong. First the Govt. of the North let the states vote on the 14th amendment. When they could not muster enough votes, they kicked the south out and said their were 'conquered territories' and then voted and achieved the result, then forced them back into the Union again (which they didn't want anyway) and set up their own puppet government, much like the puppet govt. in Afghanistan at present. The same manner was followed. At the time of the war, slaves were considered property unfortunately, and Lincoln tried to get the Corwin amendendment passed in order to allow slavery to continue and keep the South in the Union. Confederate ambassadors went north to sue for peace but were ignored while Lincoln prepared his Navy to Charleston Harbor where 70% taxes were collected on imports. "Let the South go, where shall we get our revenues?" he said. In 1863 he told the south if they did not lay down their arms, all bets were off and Emancipation would be enforced. Furthermore he tried to send African americans to Belize and Liberia (which did not by in large, succeed). Was this a man of sincerity? No! He wanted to keep Queen Victoria from sending her troops south from Canada and crushing the North. Lincoln hired foreign mercinaries to do his dirty work. All the south wanted was compensation for the slaves for what they invested and all would have been well. But instead he pursued an unpopular war that cost many lives (sounds familiar today with Bush). The war cost double on the Federal budget, as to what it would have cost to compensate the small percentage of plantations that had slaves. Hence we have the dying Federal empire and states are quite frankly, fed up. We talk today about Red and Blue states, so are we truely United? a govt. of the People, for the People and by the People. Not 'buy' the people and etc. If we were able to shake off a British Monarch called King George, then why should we keep another King George today? If we cannot legally decide which form of govt. we want, then the Revolutionary war was in vain and our ancestors who gave us our freedom, died in vain. Thanks for Reading. by Gary Price (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 21 comments) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 9:52:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not saying it's illegal....
I was just saying it would not be honored or accepted by the administration we have now. Since Bush is not in favor of it in Iraq for reasons of more violence, what do you think he would do here? Thanks for the history though. by Joe Rathbun (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 142 comments) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 12:22:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Very interesting
You wrote: "If we cannot legally decide which form of govt. we want, then the Revolutionary war was in vain and our ancestors who gave us our freedom, died in vain." True words. by Barbara Peterson (73 articles, 109 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 541 comments [98 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 8:00:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Retraction:
Retraction: One thing I’m dead set against is disinformation, whether it be from the Rethuglicans, who usually spin the truth and lie when it serves their purpose, and especially us that are attempting to bring-back accountability to government. I erroneously stated that Bush was in support of Partitioning Iraq; evidently I erred on that remark, which was pointed-out by Jr. On CampusProgress.net. (Post on that forum and you better have your facts correct! JAC by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 at 9:16:20 PM (0+)
|
) For now, it’s Democrats as well as Republicans who are making mistakes in regard Iraq policy, and President Bush has done enough on his own without having me falsely, albeit accidentally, stating that he was in favor of partitioning Iraq. I will edit the original article in the AM.
|
Reply: Bush's statement....
''I don't think that's the right way to go,'' Bush said on Fox. Setting up ''three autonomous regions will create a situation where'' more fighting would occur. Bush is coming under increasing pressure to change the U.S. strategy in Iraq. An independent commission set up by Congress and led by former Secretary of State James Baker is reviewing U.S. policy. It is set to make its recommendations before the end of the year. Baker, who served under Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, has said creating three Iraqi states in a loose federation is one of the ideas that the panel is reviewing.-from the Daily Kos Just some help with the retraction. by Joe Rathbun (8 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 142 comments) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 12:16:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Anger over Iraq and Bush prompts calls for Vermont secession
FYI, article above is highlighted on http://www.spiderednews.com/BushAdministration.htm See related article : "Anger over Iraq and Bush prompts calls for secession from the US for Vermont" by editorial spiderednews.com (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 6:22:03 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Texas VS White 1868
I realize that Texas Vs White in 1868 declared secession unlawful. If tried today I believe it could succeed though I wonder why the Gov. of Vermont supports a 'Real ID act' in reference to driver's licenses. Might as well stand in line for that microchip implant if people aren't going to wake up. That's what it is coming to. We will be brainwashed like the Chinese, calling it the 'motherland' or 'homeland' Hitler did the same with the enabling act (vs Patriot act) and called it the 'Fatherland.' Facism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. by Gary Price (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 21 comments) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 6:50:10 AM (0+)
|
|
Call it like you see it
by john mccarthy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 23 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 10:50:01 AM (0+)
|
|
We all can't get along
It appears that many of you on this site have a misunderstanding of what conservatives stand for. Also, it appears that you relate religion with conservatism. While it may be true that most christians do vote conservatively, it is incorrect to assume that all conservatives agree with ALL christian views. True conservatives believe in limited government and believe in the right of citizens to choose what is right for them. I have to admit that there are several key conservative issues that are linked to religious beliefs. These issues being marriage and abortion. And while many conservatives do not approve of same sex marriages or abortion, they do believe in an individual's right to choose. Most conservatives would choose personal freedom over government regulation any day. It has been my experience that liberals are the ones who, in fact, call on government regulation. It seems as though whenever one of them is offended by something, they scream bloody murder until the government steps in. You can thank groups such as the ACLU, Media Matters and MOVEON.org for coaxing the government to intervene. Most conservatives are guilty of nothing more than protecting their God given rights and personal freedoms, NOT infringing on the rights of others. Anyway, I believe secession might well be a viable option. It is obvious that we have two groups who have extremely different views on how the country should be run. I love my country, but I love my personal freedoms more. Our government has become arrogant and burdensome, and contrary to what many of you believe, it did NOT happen overnight. by Andrea Bartholomew (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 11:06:07 AM (0+)
|
|
State devision
I live in southern Illinois and would like to get rid of Chicago. They run the state and we southerners dont have a say in it because we are outnumbered. Is there a way to do this legaly. I know that there is Virginia and West Virginia. When did they split up? by chessmaster (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 10:02:39 PM (0+)
|
|
E Pluribus Unum
John my fellow combat veteran, Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, buddy. Happy, happy, joy, joy. Oh, Alex Jones is a demi-god too! As to the question of your oath of enlistment or oath of office for the military, though... I'll presume we're talking the United States (I'm sorry but I don't recall any country entitled the dis-united states of amerika). The short answer is that your commitment under the oath ends once your service obligation is completed (enlisted or cadet) or you resign your commission (warrant officer and officer). Retirement is a gray area in that you may still be subject to recall if you never resign your commission, but these instances are very specific and are reviewed in detail at the time of retirement. So, sleep sound tonight! On the presumption you've met your obligation and are out of the military or you've resigned your commission, you no longer have a requirement to fulfill your oath. It's for this same reason that when enlisted personnel re-enlist, they once again swear the oath of enlistment. Where there is no contractual obligation for those personnel that retain a military commission from Congress, there is no need to swear any additional oath of officer. Each military branch of service has their own set of regulations that governs obligation and re-enlistment requirements. Where I was both enlisted and officer in the USAR, I'm familiar with the Army Regulations that pertain to these activities - http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r135_91.pdf and http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r140_111.pdf. As to the secession issue, yeah...right. The South tried that and it didn't work out so good for them. I'm glad, though, that we as a united people still have a sense of unity about us - "United we stand; divided we fall" or "E Pluribus Unum" – from many, (comes) one. Did I say "one"? That means we (the many) work together and compromise so that we are one. Crazy concept... Regards, Tom by Tom Murphy (3 articles, 5 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 2103 comments [55 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Oct 5, 2007 at 10:05:45 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
