Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
The Future History of the Arctic

The Future History of the Arctic

By Charles Emmerson
$19.11

more items

 
Report

The New Secessionists

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Apr 26, 2010

By Chris Hedges

Editor’s note: Because of an error, Chris Hedges’ April 25 column used part of a sentence that appeared in a recent article by Christopher Ketcham in GOOD magazine and on its website. Truthdig acknowledges Ketcham’s work and regrets the failure to properly attribute the wording to him. Ketcham is credited in the revised column below.

Acts of rebellion which promote moral and political change must be nonviolent. And one of the most potent nonviolent alternatives in the country, which defies the corporate state and calls for an end to imperial wars, is the secessionist movement bubbling up in some two dozen states including Vermont, Texas, Alaska and Hawaii.

These movements do not always embrace liberal values. Most of the groups in the South champion a “neo-Confederacy” and are often exclusively male and white. Secessionists, who call for statewide referendums to secede, do not advocate the use of force. It is unclear, however, if some will turn to force if the federal structure ever denies them independence.

These groups at least grasp that the old divisions between liberals and conservatives are obsolete and meaningless. They understand that corporations have carried out a coup d’état. They recognize that our permanent war economy and costly and futile imperial wars are unsustainable and they demand that we take popular action to prevent citizens from being further impoverished and robbed by Wall Street speculators and corporations.

“The defining characteristic of the Second Vermont Republic is that there are two enemies, the United States government and corporate America,” Thomas Naylor, who founded Vermont’s secessionist movement, told me when I reached him by phone at his home 10 miles south of Burlington. “One owns the other one. We are not like the tea party. The underlying premise of the tea party movement is that the system is fixable.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
As reported by Christopher Ketcham in a recent issue of GOOD magazine, Naylor points to the nation’s decline. The secessionist leader notes, in Ketcham’s words, “Of all the western democracies, the United States stands near dead last in voter turnout, last in health care, last in education, highest in homicide rates, mortality, STDs among juveniles, youth pregnancy, abortion, and divorce. ...”

The nation, he says grimly, has trillions in deficits it can never repay, is beset by staggering income disparities, has destroyed its manufacturing base and is the planet’s most egregious polluter and greediest consumer of fossil fuels. With some 40 million Americans living in poverty, tens of millions more in a category called “near poverty” and a permanent underclass trapped by a real unemployment rate of 17 percent, there is ample tinder for internal combustion. If we do not undertake a dramatic reversal soon, he asserts, the country and the global environment will implode with catastrophic consequences.

The secessionist movement is gaining ground in several states, especially Texas, where elected officials increasingly have to contend with secessionist sentiments.

“Our membership has grown tremendously since the bailouts, since the tail end of the Bush administration,” said Daniel Miller, the leader of the Texas Nationalist Movement, when I spoke with him by telephone from his home in the small town of Nederland, Texas. “There is a feeling in Texas that we are being spent into oblivion. We are operating as the cash cow for the states that cannot manage their budgets. With this Congress, Texas has been squarely in their cross hairs, from cap and trade to the alien transfer and exit program. So many legislative pieces coming down the pike are offensive to people here in Texas. The sentiment for independence here is very high. The sentiment inside the Legislature and state capital is one of guarded optimism. There are scores of folks within state government who are supportive of what we are doing, although there is a need to see the public support in a more tangible way. This is why we launched our Let Texas Decide petition drive. We intend to deliver over a million signatures on the opening day of the [state legislative] session on Jan. 11, 2011.”

Miller, like Naylor, expects many in the tea party to migrate to secessionist movements once they realize that they cannot alter the structure or power of the corporate state through electoral politics. Polls in Texas show the secessionists have support from about 35 percent of the state’s population, and Vermont is not far behind.

Naylor, who taught economics at Duke University for 30 years, is, along with Kirkpatrick Sale and Donald Livingston, one of the intellectual godfathers of the secessionist movement. His writing can be found on The Second Vermont Republic website, on the website Secession News and in postings on the Middlebury Institute website. Naylor first proposed secession in his 1997 book “Downsizing the USA.” He comes out of the “small is beautiful” movement, as does Sale. Naylor lives with his wife in the Vermont village of Charlotte.

The Second Vermont Republic arose from the statewide anti-war protests in 2003. It embraces a left-wing populism that makes it unique among the national movements, which usually veer more toward Ron Paul libertarianism. The Vermont movement, like the Texas and Alaska movements, is well organized. It has a bimonthly newspaper called The Vermont Commons, which champions sustainable agriculture and energy supplies based on wind and water, and calls for locally owned banks which will open lines of credit to their communities. Dennis Steele, who is campaigning for governor as a secessionist, runs Radio Free Vermont, which gives a venue to Vermont musicians and groups as well as being a voice of the movement. Vermont, like Texas, was an independent republic, but on March 4, 1791, voted to enter the union. Supporters of the Second Vermont Republic commemorate the anniversary by holding a mock funeral procession through the state capital, Montpelier, with a casket marked “Vermont.” Secessionist candidates in Vermont are currently running for governor, lieutenant governor, eight Senate seats and two House seats.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By ofersince72, May 29, 2010 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

80 to 13 Senate…...356 to 65 House of Representatives
Right now,

I believe

every state in the union ought to be dissoving from
this inept , money grubbing, sorry legislating,
war mongering federal government.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By omop, May 11, 2010 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

STEVE.

Your the first and only commentor on any forum to call it rightSouthern The
Southern Poverty Law Center is nothing more than a fringe propaganda mill.

Its been suggested that it is somewhat subservient to the ADL.

Only in our society is it acceptable for a group of individuals to form entities
such as ADK and SPLC center and whenever other Americans form equal in
goals associations they are immediately called neo-nazis or anti this and anti
that.

The schmoozing of America continues.

Report this

By Steve, May 11, 2010 at 10:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a Christian/conservative/libertarian/agrarian I am quite sympathetic to the sentiments of this column.  Great stuff.  A couple of sticking points though… 

The Southern Poverty Law Center is nothing more than a fringe propaganda mill.  One very good example of their freakish demeanor is demonstrated by the fact that they recently listed Ron Paul as one of the nation’s top 40 most radical & dangerous militant patriots. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-patriots . To cite the SPLC as an objective authority on anything is beyond absurdity.  Much, if not most of the lies that they spew aren’t worth the time to read for anything other than entertainment value.  If anything, the citation by the SPLC that a group or persons are dangerous should give us at least some reason to discern that they are likely good people and sympathetic to the cause of liberty.  The SPLC is the enemy that creates lists and attempts to destroy many good people.  Someone needs to warn everyone about them.

Second, the 20th century produced the most successful mass murderers in the history of the world, and they were predominantly atheists.  I wouldn’t be too worried about phantom “perverted Christian fascists” when Washington is warming to Maoism.  And, since you “don’t know what people think they are going to accomplish with guns”, the above remark should clue you in.  We will defend ourselves, our families and our liberty to the best of our ability when it becomes necessary to do so.  We will also do our best to defend progressives who once thought themselves to be above violence, and, hence, are unprepared for the violence that elected and corporate fascists will surely visit upon them wtshtf.  They should remember though, wtshtf *our* families will come first.  If you would be wise, you would arm yourself as well.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, May 5, 2010 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

Mark Thomey  

When you commented,

“Saying that Lincoln’s invasion and conquest of the South settles the legality/constitutionality of secession is equivalent to saying that because I can physically beat the sh** out of you and take your wallet that assault and battery and stealing are not illegal.”

Your comment could be classified as a simple (minded) analogy, but more correctly it would be classified as analogical allegory used metaphorically to indicate a figurative and false representation of an assault and battery. To put it most succinctly, it was a mere semblance (guise) of an analogy which was metaphorically and allegorically fallacious because it was a symbolic narrative based on a false premise.

Linguistics can be difficult. A good example of a metaphorical allegory would be the figurative use of the word “Sovereign” as a substitute for the phrase “Slave master.” Incidentally, an interesting bit of information about the word massa’ is that the word is not an Ebonics abbreviation for the word master. In actuality the word massa’ is derived from a linguistic invention that hails from the 15th century. The word was used in all dialects of the Afro-Asian core languages, and its correct translation is, “Stupid white man.”

Delving into the realm of legality, I’ll point out that your use of axiomatic morality would not be an effective defense in a court of law. For example, my mother in law once, using coercive force, invaded my home in the middle of the night. Clearly, if I had shot her, I would have faced retribution both legal and familial, even if her intent was hostility. Whether she was, or was not, delivering bread would be non-mitigating.

Once again, your use of simplistic analogical, metaphorical, allegory is nothing but a guise, based on a fallacious symbolic narrative.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 4, 2010 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

With Texas it will be “The Eyes of Texas” sung, they consider themselves separate from Dixie anyway. You see more Texas flags in Texas than CSA. (Remember Texas was a Republic from 1835-1845.)

The one who needs to clean it up is BP a country unto itself and pay for whatever it costs to clean it up. It will be billions of dollars or more. The Gulf will be a poisoned oil slick and a huge dead zone. No more fishing or swimming or beach fronts all deserted if not abandoned. Ah the future.

Report this

By Mark Thomey, May 4, 2010 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Inherit the Wind:
I don’t think you’re actually reading what I write, and you only make assertions without backing them up with any evidence.  Just you’re saying it doesn’t make it so.  Sorry to disappoint you.

My understading is supported much more vigorously by history and law than yours.  I’ve offered evidence to show that.  The principles of State sovereignty, interposition, and secession can be found in the ratifying documents of the States, the Federalist papers, the records of the debates in the several State Conventions, and other writings of the founders, e.g. Jefferson and Madison’s Kentucky and Virginia resolves.  They can also be found in practical applications, e.g. South Carolina’s nullification of the tariff (in keeping with Constitutional obligations/powers) and the northern States’ nullification of the fugitive slave laws (a breach of constitutional obligations, since Art. IV, Sect. II required the return of such persons).

And the rigged-in-advance rulings of a corrupt, reconstruction era u.s. supreme kangaroo court can hardly be considered justice in any reasonable sense of the word.  Besides, as I’ve already shown, on questions of constitutional interpretation, the supreme court is NOT the final arbiter - the States are.  They created the federal goverment and delegated powers to it.  That necessarily implies the action of a superior (the States) towards an inferior (the feds) as it concerns the interpretation of constitutional limits of power. 

Your continued hyperbole about secession threatening the security of the u.s. is just silly.  It would appear that from 1861-65, the remaining u.s. States managed to field a formidable army and navy to prosecute a war on the South, still conduct relations with other foreign countries, deliver the mail, etc.  U.S. territory was not threatened in any meaningful way by Confederate Armies nor by other foreign powers during that time, so I fail to see your point.  You’re just spewing gas.

And how about pointing that fickle finger of blame for threatening u.s. security on your new england brethren who openly advocated their secession from the union in 1803 over Louisiana and in 1812, DURING A WAR WITH ENGLAND!!  No, they didn’t actually do it, as their concerns were finally accommodated.  However, calling a convention to secede during an ongoing war seems pretty destablilzing to me.  However, even under those questionable circumstances, no Southern States howled in horror and marched an army into new england to rape, pillage, burn, and destroy.

In a civilized nation, treason is defined by law, not by armed might.  Had Washington and company lost, they would most certainly have been hanged.  But they won; therefore, the principles of secession and government by free consent which they established for America by the vindication of their arms only DAMNS the lying bastard lincoln and his fellow revolutionaries even more - not the South.  The South was right in 1861 because America was right in 1776.  To deny one is to deny the other.  You can’t have it both ways.  The South had more of a legal and moral precedent upon which to stand BECAUSE of American victory in 1783.  lincoln had no legal or moral legs to stand upon for support of his actions against the South.

It never fails to amaze me how you yankees will use any wild and unsound explanation to defend the greed, lust for power, barbarism, and war crimes of lincoln and your own ancestors.  Talk about a disconnect.  What hypocrites.

And if you’re so sick of us, why this dogged insistence on keeping us pinned to this soviet union by bayonets?  Why not just let us go in peace, then you won’t have us around to complain about for holding you back from reaching that enlightened, progressive, marxist utopia for which you so ardently long.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 4, 2010 at 10:44 am Link to this comment

I know how to show these secessionists cry babies what
for!

Let the state of Texas and Arizona pay for the clean oil
up themselves, without any federal help. They could work
together for the common secessionist and find out how
they great it is and if they like it?

When they’re all done they can sing Dixie together!

Maybe Arizona may not want to help, what then, after all
it is not there coast line.

Report this

By Morpheus, May 4, 2010 at 7:06 am Link to this comment

Secession is not the way. It would be the end of us. Our stregnth is in our Unitedness.

There is a better way to bring about fundamental change. Join the Revolution.

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

Report this

By Morpheus, May 4, 2010 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Secession is not the way. It would be the end of us. Our real strength is in our unitedness.

There is a better way to bring about fundamental change. Join the Revolution.

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 3, 2010 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Mark Thomey:

You have a FASCINATING interpretation of the United States Constitution and its implications.  Of course, you have been proved 100% wrong in your interpretation by both history and US Supreme Court decisions.

What the South did was treason, as defined by the Constitution itself.  They struck at the heart of the United States, seriously, nearly FATALLY endangered its National Security, and, of course, have NO excuse for treason because….they lost.

Yes, that is ultimately how treason is defined.  Had Washington failed and the Continental Army captured, all the leaders we deify would have been hanged as traitors and NO court in the world, in any nation, would have acquitted them.  The CSA leaders were damned lucky that Lincoln intuitively understood the lessons of Sun-Tzu: When you have defeated an enemy you must embrace him or destroy him.  Lincoln chose the embrace but was murdered by a cadre of fanatics who were too cowardly to actually fight for the CSA (Booth sat out the War in Maryland, I believe).  The consequent mess of Reconstruction was not what Lincoln intended.

I’m still amazed the people defend the South’s treason like it was legitimate. A privileged few wanted to keep their slaves, their plantations and their incredible wealth, and conned the ordinary folk into thinking they were doing it for THEM!  But they figured it out eventually, saying “Rich Man’s war, Poor Man’s fight”.

And history is repeating itself. How is seceding going to help the ordinary citizen in Texas?  But it WILL help the legendarily corrupt “Lege” as Molly Ivins used to call it, get away with murder.  Look deeper into the secession movements and in EVERY CASE you’ll find someone with nefarious aims who stands to make out really big.

Personally, I’m quite sick of the crazies in Texas and Arizona etc who think THEIR way of doing things will work, without every remembering they are subsidized by the “blue” states.

Report this

By Mark Thomey, May 3, 2010 at 8:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

JDmysticDJ:
No, yours is not a more correct allegory (sic, I think you meant analogy).  It is incorrect for the reasons I already posted in reply to Inherit the Wind.  The South did not initiate hostilities.  She merely responded to the treachery of lincoln and company, who were sending troops and arms to Fort Sumter, not ‘bread’ as they falsely claimed afterwards. 

There is an old moral axiom that he who strikes the first blow is not necessarily the one who rendered violence necessary.  If someone invades your home by force, in the middle of the night, are you not justified in shooting them?  In so doing, would you be considered the aggressor?  Of course not. 

This is the correct analogy for Fort Sumter, which was the territory and possession of the State of South Carolina.  Lincoln acted as the aggressor by sending troops and munitions, under cover of darkness, and with hostile intent.

Report this

By Mark Thomey, May 3, 2010 at 8:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Inherit the Wind:
You’re correct.  The federal constitution does not mention secession; however, neither did the sovereign States delegate to congress a power to suppress it.  Therefore, secession, by its lack of explicit mention, falls under the protections of the 9th (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.) and 10th (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.) Amendments.  It’s not enough to just read the document.  You must also correctly understand it in light of its historical and legal contexts.

In their Acts of Ratification, the States of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island explicitly declared their right to unilaterally withdrawal from the constitutional compact when, in their estimation, its powers had been perverted to their injury or oppression.  Read those, and you’ll see that they spoke only for the People of their respective States – the only People for whom they had any right or power to speak.  By the terms of the constitution itself, all States have the same rights as any other; therefore, all States, by virtue of Virginia, et. al., have a right to secede.

Your assertion that lincoln’s invasion was not in invasion is the bovine excrement.  The Confederate States were no more a part of the united States in April of 1861 than North Carolina and Rhode Island were when George Washington was inaugurated as president of the eleven united States in April 1789.  In the latter case, both States mentioned did not join the union for another 7 and 13 months, respectively.  Under your, Webster’s, Story’s and lincoln’s erroneous interpretations, President Washington should have invaded and subdued North Carolina and Rhode Island because they failed to adhere to the union.  Of course, that never happened.

U. S. Constitution, Article IV, Section IV, states:  The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. 
Note that federal government is to protect the States against invasion, and shall not enter them forcefully even to quell ‘domestic violence’ without the request of the Governor or the Legislature.  Therefore, lincoln did not have a power to unilaterally make war on the Confederacy whether you erroneously consider them still ‘in the union’ or as a foreign country.  You can not produce one request from a Southern State for protection from domestic violence, nor can you produce a congressional declaration of war against the Confederacy.  There is no historical or legal basis upon which your arguments can stand.

The Confederacy sent ambassadors to Washington to meet with lincoln to settle matters appertaining to the South’s secession from the union.  Lincoln wouldn’t see them, but had Seward be his middle man.  Seward lied to the ambassadors, saying that lincoln planned to evacuate Fort Sumter.  Meanwhile, lincoln was having Adm. Gustavus Fox gather an invasion fleet in New York harbor to take troops and arms to Sumter.  When the Confederacy discovered the plot, even waiting until the federal ships lay off the bar of Charleston Harbor, President Davis finally ordered General Beauregard to reduce the fort.  Those are the facts of history, sir, according to lincoln’s own hand.  Your assertions that lincoln had powers he didn’t, and that he did not invade the South, are those of an historical and legal ignoramus, your TYPING IN ALL CAPS, notwithstanding.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 2, 2010 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

Really, ofersince72?  You lie.  You are struck dumb. 
You haven’t a shred of truth so you cannot say anything. 
You slither into ranting defensive attacks. You know what
slithers, don’t you? I am not a right-winger.  I am much
more dangerous.  For I am liberal who thinks instead of
cringing at a party line.  Even the Democrats are not
sacrosanct from my proximity to the center line.  Those like you would
push me over into the Independents who would opt out of voting
rather than vote for self-serving Republicans or vote for a Democrat
who doesn’t represent my views.  And I am certainly not conservative
Rightist, anarchist, socialist, communist, or radically Leftist.  You all
drink from the same polluted stream.  It is my tribe who are the danger
in this world.  We do not bow to any gods political or otherwise except
the god of clear as water reason.  Try to tell the truth and it will choke
you, for your throat is constricted to the way of truth.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 2, 2010 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

To defend you position, you have to spew out
right wing philosophy

Report this

By ofersince72, May 2, 2010 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

Omar Kahdr,, how would you classify him,,

child terrorist,  protecting his mother?/

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 2, 2010 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

Slithering away, are you ofersince72. Hahaha you have
your tail between your legs.  Hahaha You are struck dumb
aren’t you?  Hahahaha Do you realize you show your naked
ignorance on Truthdig?  I’m just as qualified as your asking me
to make the definitions, you fool.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 2, 2010 at 1:41 pm Link to this comment

You watched way to many of G. Bush and Obama
press conferences.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 2, 2010 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

I don’t believe you are anywhere near qualified to
give me a lecture about terrorism, who is and who isn’t.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 2, 2010 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Ah yes, the mythological Dominionsts show up again, Night-Gaunt. 
Night-Gaunt, why is it you are the only one on the entire Truthdig
website that talks about these ghostly Dominionists?  Could it be they are
a figment of your imagination?  Just curious.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 2, 2010 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment

Some can make distinctions and others cannot, and it
appears as though you cannot, ofersince72.  It does
take self-discipline to not run forums into one another. 
Blurring differences is a common defensive tactic by those
who cannot see or intuit reality clearly. And illustrates the
need to blather a personal opinion everywhere.  It is called
the shotgun effect.

Since the American troops are composed of all kinds of people
with religious proclivities, including Muslim by the way, it would be
a misnomer to call American troops Christian anything. To call them
terrorists is also a misnomer since they are not enmass out there
screaming for the deaths of all Muslims, now are they?  The fact that
they have been sent to root out the rot of Islamic terrorists is not a
reason to call them terrorists.  Obviously you are an Islamist terrorist
sympathizer or you would disqualify yourself before making incendiary
statements about America, American troops, and The American People.

Now I will give an extended definition of what I think is Islamic
terrorism.  But you in turn are obliged to give an equivalent resourced
definition for Christian terrorism as it applies to the US military.

Islamic terrorism (or Islamist terrorism) are terms for what is commonly
know as non-state terrorism that takes is source from Islamism and its
aims are to compel Islamic culture, society and values in opposition to
the political, imperialistic, and cultural influences of non-Muslims, and
the Western world in particular.  The political dimensions to the
ideology, lies in the history of Western influences and the control
exerted after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918.  It is the most
commonly stated reason used within the Islamist ideology to justify and
explain its use of violence as resistive and retributive against western
influences.  Islamist terrorism is “the ideology of violence and
practice of exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies of the
West.” See pp. 28, Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict: ideological and
structural aspects,
by Ekaterina Stepanova, Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute, Oxford University Press US, 2008.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, May 2, 2010 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

“What is an Islamic Terrorist?
Does that mean all of our troops are Christian Terrorists “
-ofersince72

Now you are getting the picture. The difference? Who is the dominate country on this planet? It is why there are no sanctions against the USA or any talk of them. When you have an armed invasion of another country that has done nothing to you qualifies as the epitome of crimes—-a war crime! As per the Nuremberg protocols. How does the USA get off free? Threats both explicit and implicit do it for our allies and the UN in general.

If the the Dominionists fail in their coup when their engineering of the collapse of our economy happens (or doesn’t) the USA would break up into regional and local polities. After much starvation and death of course. One fictional example is the TV series “Jerico” I found plausible.

One shouldn’t be “too big to fail”  as we have been and Russia, India, China and several other places that are large polities right now. Many factors play in this including recognition. What a traitor is to one country is the patriot of the next. Like our Founders were and the 1/3 of the population of the colonies in their war of independence. Traitors to the crown but patriots to their Declaration.

Report this

By ofersince72, May 2, 2010 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment

It is not posible to separate some topics into
different forums.

What is an Islamic Terrorist?
Does that mean all of our troops are Christian Terrorists

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 2, 2010 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

mike112769 said, “If I am presenting my side of a
case, then any information I give will simply support my
view.”
that is precisely the point of backing up one’s
opinion with verifiable sources. 

No one really cares about another’s personal opinion unless
it is asked for, one personal opinion is just as estimable or worthless
as another.  Pontificating, believe me, is just not generally appreciated
unless one is mining around for like-opinions thinking, erroneously,
that there is magic in numbers.  But informed opinion says there is
substance to one’s opinion, not simply emotional reactionism.  Those
are worthwhile listening to.

Regarding secessionists, you said, “I simply stated that I could see
their point, and it’s hard to blame them.”
  If it is so hard to blame
them then you agree with them to some amount.  Secession is a radical
action.  It is impossible without a constitutional ratification as well, so it
is pretty much an exercise of pissing into the wind.  So to take it as a
blameless point of contention is a useless exercise.  Of course, people
may engage in all kinds of useless calisthenics and that is their right,
but to promote secession is really a sedition of a type.  I do not
support the emotional reactionisms of secessionists as this is a union
of sovereign states each of which has integrity.  When I taught public
school in Texas for a spell I was aghast when at the daily pledge of
allegiance to the United States students were required to pledge
allegiance to the State of Texas which seems contradictory separatism
of a sort in allegiances. 

Arizona is a sovereign state already and does not need to be a separate
entity.  As someone already pointed out, rightly, the ramifications of
seceding means no more funding of roads, education, health care for
the elderly, Medicare, Social Security benefits, no protection by the US
national guard, etc.  Trade agreements would have to pass congress
and all kinds of consequences that I’m sure most of the people of
Arizona would not want to happen.  Proof of citizenship is required by
many agencies.  Birth certificates are necessary to obtain a teaching
certificate for instance.  Because of the impossibility to tell an illegal
from a legal Hispanic, that factor presents a problem.  Yes, I think the
legal immigrants ought to say how they would solve that problem
because the illegals impact their lifestyle as well as the non-Hispanic
population.  Profiling cannot be helped when there are no
distinguishing marks between illegals and legals.  I don’t think you and
I are on opposite sides.  I think some misunderstandings got in the
way.

May I now say, I’m pleased to make your acquaintance and hope we
proceed on a better understanding.

Report this

By glogrrl, May 2, 2010 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Of all the western democracies, the United States stands near dead last in voter turnout, last in health care, last in education, highest in homicide rates, mortality, STDs among juveniles, youth pregnancy, abortion, and divorce. ...”

So much for American Exceptionalism.

Report this

By mike112769, May 2, 2010 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

She: You are correct in that I called you a Hoper. For that, I apologise. I did act on the presumption that you were an Obama apologist, and for that I was wrong.

As for me being “A person who is
intolerant of any creed, belief, or race, that is not his or her own.” , well I must take exception to that. I am more than willing to change my view on nearly anything, provided the argument is backed with logic. My main problem with a lot of people is that they think things are fine. I put you in that group when you posted your first response to one of my comments. Yes, most of the major, immediate problems that you cited have been , temporarily, taken care of. However; none of the fixes are permanent.

I do not cite reference material for one simple reason. If I am presenting my side of a case, then any information I give will simply support my view. If you really want infornation on a topic, you must look at all sides of it yourself. I don’t believe a word anybody posts until I can verify it myself. Any references a poster gives merely enforces their view.

Please belive that I never had any enmity towards you, ITW, or any other person on TD. One of the great things about America is our right to disagree, peacefully and respectfully. While I may not agree with you, I respect your opinions, as you seem to be a person who thinks before they speak (a rarity nowadays).

Please notice that I never advocated secession. I simply stated that I could see their point, and it’s hard to blame them. Our system is broken, and Arizona is simply trying to do what is right for their state. The legal immigrants should be more upset than our citizens in respect to illegals. Asking for proof of citizenship is not profiling. I do not compare us asking for proof of citizenship to the nazis persecuting the Jews. The worst we’ll do to them is ship them home. I think that is the basis of our disagreement. On this issue, alas, we will remain on opposite sides for a while.

Respectfully
Michael Beglin

Report this

By bogi666, May 2, 2010 at 6:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

SAMOSAMO, great observation about why school text books for Texas which want to secede from the Union should be used as the model text books for the rest of the country.thanks

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 1, 2010 at 4:38 pm Link to this comment

mike112769 - you seem like a nice enough person
also.  So I am looking back in the forum to see why it
struck me that you showed some bigotry. JDmysticDJ,
April 30 at 11:23 pm defined bigot “A person who is
intolerant of any creed, belief, or race, that is not his or
her own.”  First of all my calling you a bigot has nothing to
do with your assessment of slavery not being a cause for the civil war.
I am not a scholar of the Civil War, but I did say long before you
suggested that I do I was doing my research, so at the present I will
leave it up to those learned who have studied it.  I would believe you,
even, if you cited sources for your opinion and I could look it up to see
if you were correct.  Far as I can tell, slavery was a cause if not THE
cause.  The abolitionists created much havoc.  Not only in the United
States, but there is a major piece of abolitionist history for South
America which I already cited.  My response that you were bigoted has
to do with your saying I had some sort of felt superiority, and that is as
untrue of me as you say being a bigot is not of you. 

Showing intolerance you called me a Hoper which was name-calling
sarcasm so you are culpable there as well.  I reciprocate in kind if I
perceive being called a name.  It is not an interaction I enjoy, but I am
up to it when it happens.  It gives me no pleasure to be involved in a
food fight name-calling festival.  I note every time it happens that it is
instigated by some adolescent regression.  And I will not let anyone call
me any name at all. 

Then you disrespectfully attributed my being in some mythical group
you made up “who refuse to see the harsh truth staring us in the face?”
Like what harsh truth is that?  Spurious accusation is infantile.  It is not
the case that “anything Washington” does is fine with me, nor do I think
ITW thinks so either. I’ve seen him criticize the government plenty of
times.  I have never indicated that Washington is unassailable as long
as what? as long as they keep me safe from “the scary Middle
Easterners?” and I ‘ve never said the Middle Easterners as a whole race
want to kill us all.  I have even posted stories about Muslims who I
work with, who worked directly for me and in other social situations
who are wonderful and grand people.  So there you are just being a
prevaricator that is calculated to puff up some view that you are more
moral than ITW and myself.  Hence my judgment that you display a
superiority self-assessment.

I can only imagine your verbal mugging was in response to my first
address to you where I asked you if you would be all right if anyone
disagreed with you?  And to what degree you could tolerate
disagreement? and finally if someone totally disagreed with you, how
you would handle it?  I asked because I did disagree with you but as is
the usual case on these forums, people do not like it so much and they
attack those who disagree with them.  I guess we found out.  No to
the first question, not at all to the second, and to attack and call them
names is the answer to the third.

As far as my feelings for Islamist terrorists, I have voiced concern that
they have made statements to the effect that they would kill Americans. 
It is a fact that they have.  To deny that is an absurdity.  I am not here
debating whether they, the terrorists, have any justification, that is for
another forum. And my statements were in the context of other forums,
not at all on this one.  So you picked it as a shiv out of the blue. 

You failed to notice that I also granted that I could concede you are
right in some of your criticisms, but you are very ambiguous and
generalize.  You do not grant the possibility you might have said things
that I would take issue with.

It is not my intention to have or keep an enmity going between you and
I.  I have amply explained my view of our interaction.  I hope this will
end it.

Report this

By mike112769, May 1, 2010 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

ITW: Surely you know that the British government was under severe pressure from its people to cut all ties with the South. Their government came close to a meltdown over this.

She: Whatever. Keep picking and choosing to make your point.

Both you and ITW just want to argue. It seems to me that you like calling others a bigot; but I wonder if you realize how pre-formed your own opinions are? You both presumed that because I deny that the Civil War was over slavery, I must be a bigot. I have never made a bigotted comment, and never will. You are the ones who refuse to see me as a person. All you see is a racist ass. Simply because I disagree with you over something that happened well over a century ago. Who are the bigots here?

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 1, 2010 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

“Reading Shenonymous’s posts, she is trying to convey that
the slave trade was exclusively an Arab business, and neglecting
all the other participatants, and the proportions mentioned
above, and that is coming from a so called,  college professor.
That smacks of intentional fabrication and falsification of history
and complete malice that is not worth responding to.”
  Who is
falsifying now? You are quite the accomplished liar.  You might have a
serious reading disorder, truedigger3! Perhaps you need lessons
in reading comprehension and personal integrity.  Please quote me
where I said the Arabs were the only slave traders. You act like an
idiot.  How stupid you show yourself to be to make that glaring
mistake.  Why you purposely misconstrue what I say might be
attributed to unprincipled character.  A feature of your generally
misogynist perspective.  Yes,“the beautiful blonde women” for the
Europeans.  Of course, I, a woman, am an easier target, you think, for
you don’t take on the real men on these forums.  And when I don’t pay
fealty to your inane remarks, you get emotional and denigrate me. Your
weakness of mind is the culprit.  Yes slink away without showing any
evidence of your accusations.  You are a bonafide coward.

Report this

By truedigger3, May 1, 2010 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

Re:Inherit The Wind, May 1 at 12:27 pm #

ITW,

My knowledge is much more with the history of the US,  so I was concentrating on the slave trade here.
My other point was that the Arabs were involved in the slave trade in a very limited numbers mostly for domestic help or beautiful blonde women, mostly from the Caucuses and South eastern Europe for rich people’s harem.
The number of slaves traded by the Arabs are infinitesimal compared to the huge numbers traded by the English, Spaniards, Portogese and the Dutch. The Arabs didn’t sell any slaves in the Western Hemishpere.
Reading Shenonymous’s posts, she is trying to convey that the slave trade was exclusively an Arab business, and neglecting all the other participatants, and the proportions mentioned above, and that is coming from a so called,  college professor. That smacks of intentional fabrication and falsification of history and complete malice that is not worth responding to.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 1, 2010 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Your motives for posting on Truthdig truedigger3 are equally
as suspect as mine.  Me?  I enjoy the interaction and different
perspectives, unless the intent is to bash another’s head in. 
Insults are for the depraved, and i will include my own
reciprocal ones.  Tit for tat is my motto.  I give references, such
as the History of Slavery for what I say but you merely offer
opinions.  You deny the extensive practice of slave trading by the
Muslims, particularly the Ottomans and say that not one slave was
brought to America by the Muslims, that is because they had the most
lucrative of businesses in the Eastern Hemisphere.  The history of
Algiers would show that Muslim slave trading flourished.  Because of
the heinous nature of treating one set of human beings as less than
human is a shameful act I can see why sympathizers of Islam would
want to squash the truth.  In the document Struggles Against Slavery,
one can see on the map the slave trade routes over the Sinai pennisula,
Northeast Africa closest to the Red Sea and from Zanzibar north to
Karachi and Gos.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, May 1, 2010 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

TD3,

You’ve been SO cool in this thread I hate to contradict you but I must.  The British were only the leaders in selling slaves to the English colonies, but the Portuguese and Spanish out-paced them in the slave trade.  Arab traders got in on the “fun” seeing enormous wealth in selling “Black Pearls”.

In any discussion of Colonies/US slaving 2 critical things are vital to remember:
1) Something on the order of 95% of African slaves did NOT go to the Colonies/US.  I believe the number that DID go is 4%. The VAST majority of slaves went to the Caribbean, Central and South America.
2) North American slave owners viewed their slaves as a capital investment.  In the Caribbean and in Central and South America they were seen as expendable labor.  What this means is that the latter worked slaves to death and got more.  They skimped on food, housing, sanitation because they figured it was cheaper to buy more than to take care of what they had.  And die they did, by the million.

OTOH, in the Colonies/US, slaves were like machine tools and equipment—maintenance was built into the equation for optimal performanc.  So, at least for the people in bondage they had a chance.

As evil as “the peculiar institution” was, it was still far more humane than slavery in the rest of the New World, which was nothing short of a Holocaust, similar to what was done to Native Americans.

A classic economic history of slavery is Fogel and Engerman’s “Time on The Cross”.  It dispels myths and gives and an excellent basis for what slavery really was and really meant here, economically.

Report this

By truedigger3, May 1, 2010 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous wrote:
“Little known is the fact of the Christian slaves of Maghribi Muslim Barbary pirates and privateers.  Not only was it Christian nations that raided for slaves, but Arab Muslims were huge traders in the business.
___________________________________________________

Sheno,

That is a complete falsification of history.
Although Arabs traded in slaves, they were not “huge traders in the business”, as your wrote.  It was mostly for domestic help in rich people houses or as an addition to a rich man harem.
The real huge traders in slaves were the English, followed as distant second by the Spaniards, Portogese and the Dutch.
The English amassed huge fortunes from the slave trade
Most of the slaves sold in North America were brought here by English traders on English ships.
Not a single slave sold in the Americas was sold by an Arab trader.
And for your own knowledge, the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, recognised slavery and did not ban it.
One of St. Paul’s advises was for the women to obey their husbands and for the “slaves to obey their masters” and that is a bunch of real crap.
You complain about other peoples’ bigotry and biases, look in the mirror, you will be looking at one, although I am not sure you believe in the nonsense you always write or you are just here for the attention and possible career enhancement.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, May 1, 2010 at 7:32 am Link to this comment

Denial seems most useful, especially when wearing an
albatross around ones neck and saying;

“that arn’t no albatross!”

While Singing dixi, and deluding oneself into believing it
is really just a tea bag!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, May 1, 2010 at 2:47 am Link to this comment

Bigotry, mike112769, does not know any particular color and I
did not assume you to be any color at all.  Colorless as all e-ghosts
are perhaps but not white, black, or any other color.  But you do
excuse your being an ass, self-called as I have erased it from my
mental image, by couching it among the “all,” by reducing everyone to
be as assed nature as yourself. Slick strategy.  And with regard to
my doing research on matters I am not well-versed, I already
indicated that I would do that, that I always do that, and will always do
that, so your comment is redundant to my own. Check out my
comment of April 30 at 2:23 am.  Possibly you do not read as carefully
as you think you do.  If you do not have a bigoted bone in your body,
perhaps you wear one as an amulet around your neck.  I appreciated
the comments about the American Civil war from those I’ve mentioned. 

It is your conclusions voiced about ITW and myself that shows your
petty bigotry.  Slavery in America was not the only country where the
practice was abolished by means of conflict. 

Indeed, if that were true, why would the League of Nations have been
compelled to create a treaty, the 1926 Slavery Convention, also called
the Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery?  And it wasn’t
until 2002 that 98 countries, ratified that 1926 Convention.  The word
suppression means forcibly subdued.  The Convention of Saint-
Germain-en-Laye of 1919, “affirmed their intention of securing the
complete suppression of slavery in all of its forms and the slave
trade by land and sea.”  The American Civil War was over a long time
by 1919.  But before that, the Brussels Conference Act of 1890 the
signatories “declared that they were equally animated by the firm
intention of putting an end to the traffic in African slaves.”  Perhaps
you should do some research.  I would think that people of color who
had slavery in their history would know the history of slavery. 

It was the increase of democratic sentiment that led to a growing
assault on the slave trade. It is true that the French Revolution had a
huge effect on extending agitation for human rights but it was most
directly important in the violent uprisings in Saint-Domingue and the
establishment of Haitian independence.  While not as big or even
comparable to the American Civil War, it is evidence that slavery was
not abolished peacefully everywhere.  The movement for the abolition
of slavery progressed very slowly in the United States and the
prohibition of foreign slave trade promised in the Constitution which
was ratified in 1789 was not realized until 1808.  But the impulse to
guarantee human freedom by most humans has nearly overcome the
evil impulse to slavery.  Women and children now are the most
enslaved of the species throughout the world.

Little known is the fact of the Christian slaves of Maghribi Muslim
Barbary pirates and privateers.  Not only was it Christian nations that
raided for slaves, but Arab Muslims were huge traders in the business. 
It wasn’t until the Anglo-Dutch and Anglo-French naval forces
successfully attacked the Barbary ports in 1816 and 1819 that the
French’s capturing Algiers in 1830 that their repeated offense battered
the Muslims into freeing the Christian slaves. 

The word serf is a euphemism for the word slave.  Serf Reform! to use
a modern idiom, came not intentionally by peaceful or altruistic means
but usually because of economic reasons.

I direct you to the Timeline of Serf Wars from 1300 to 19th c. at
http://www.google.com/#q=Serf+wars+throughout+history&hl=en&sa;
=X&tbo=p&tbs=tl:1,tll:1300,tlh:1399&ei=rvPbS5qEMsaAlAfKpInDDA&oi;
=timeline_histogram_main&ct=timeline-
histogram&cd=1&ved=0CHAQyQEoAQ&fp=b9676b40c82c6e39
which will have to be copy/pasted into your browser because of its
length.  The universal abolition of slavery through peaceful intention is
a figment.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 30, 2010 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment

Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. The South’s slaves would have been freed without a shot being fired. Nobody woould have continued to do business with slave owners. The pressure from the British working class alone would have seen to that. As far as talking circles around me regarding the war goes, I was speaking on one issue. If you want to learn something about it, research it yourself and stop depending on posters to school you in reality.
*************************************************

Actually, Mike, YOU need to do your research.  If the UK was SO against slavery (in America) then why the hell did they SUPPORT the South?  Easy! They wanted cheap cotton and tobacco and the other agricultural products. Do you REALLY think Britain in 1861, as the dominant power in the world, as we are now, would let a little thing like SLAVERY stand in the way of trade? Did WE ever not support a fascist dictator who stood against EVERYTHING America is supposed to stand for if that prick was opposed to “Communism” or “Radical Islam”.  Why would the British in 1861 be any different? 

Plus, supporting the South had the added bonus of a) occupying the USA’s interest so the UK could act with impunity, and, IF the South won, the USA would be Balkanized.

Yes, they enacted those laws to resist the Federal Government, because they were afraid the Feds would END slavery!

This idea that the world would boycott them and their own “guilt” would end slavery is disproven by their 100 years of keeping Blacks down via Segregation.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 30, 2010 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment

Mike112769  

“...Just a realist. Anyone who thinks that our government cares about its citizens really needs to get a grip on reality.”

Your statement is much too absolute in its arrogance. Caring is not a yes or no condition. There are varying amounts, or degree, of caring. Some don’t care at all, some care a little, some care a little more than others, some care a lot.

I’ll suggest that we the people should elect, re-elect, and support those politicians that care the most, or who care more than others. Doing so will give us a government that cares. That, I believe, would be realistic.

Bigot: “A person who is intolerant of any creed, belief, or race, that is not his or her own.”

I’ll suggest that there are varying degrees of bigotry as well.

Report this

By mike112769, April 30, 2010 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

ITW: Those statements are true. You know as well as I do though that these were laws put in place by the South to challenge the federal government’s power over the states.

Shenonymous: Again with the bigoted? You rescind calling me an ass but continue to think I’m a bigot? LOL I admit to being an ass at times (as are we all), but nobody who knows me can call me a bigot. For that matter, what makes you assume that I’m even white?

Both of you have made statements on other issues over the time I’ve been on here that I’ve wholeheartedly agreed with, but on this one we must agree to disagree.

Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. The South’s slaves would have been freed without a shot being fired. Nobody woould have continued to do business with slave owners. The pressure from the British working class alone would have seen to that. As far as talking circles around me regarding the war goes, I was speaking on one issue. If you want to learn something about it, research it yourself and stop depending on posters to school you in reality.

You both seem like nice enough people. Just because I don’t trust our government the way you seem to doesn’t mean I’m stupid, bigotted, or an ass. Just a realist. Anyone who thinks that our government cares about its citizens really needs to get a grip on reality.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

mike112769, yes I see that I did fall into calling you the
name of bigoted ass.  It is not my practice to call anyone names
unless they are the first offender.  I still think you are bigoted
and that is not name-calling but describing my perception of
your stated opinion of me!  It is the ass part that is the name
called and since I don’t know you, I do not know if you are an ass.
So I expunge it from my imagined person you are. 
 
I don’t know exactly what it was I said that made you think I felt
superior to anyone.  Could you be more specific so I can evaluate your
opinion farther?  You started off by addressing me with a defensive “I
don’t care” statement then presumed again to put me in some fantasy
probability matrix that shows you have a predisposed opinion without
checking out your accusations.  Seems to me that is a sign of a
superiority complex.  It is a strategy of a preemptive bigot.  You did
presume to give a history lesson built from your own imagination and I
only say that because you did not cite any substantiation for your
beliefs.  As far as your knowledge about the Civil War goes, my
prediction came true and at least three others showed up who spoke
circles around you, one of which is ITW.  You are the accusatory type
and quite frankly you said many words without saying much at all.  As
far as ITW being a kind of running mate, he is one I am proud to run
with when we run on the same forums.  Truth is not your sole property
and it is not apparent you have even a piece of it.

Now, what happens when the Dominionists meets the Neo-
Communists?  Both are fascists, if they really exist so it could be quite
a spectacular show when they look each other in the eye.

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 30, 2010 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

Lets just look at what is being done and work from there and you will see that the faces have changed but not the modes of control. “Drill baby drill” actually means “drill baby spill.” Thank you Obama! Replace Barak Obama with George W. Bush then see if there is a real difference.

The Dominionists are waiting to let the economy fall and then they will be the only ones to pick up the pieces. Shock Doctrine then disaster capitalism and theocracy are waiting. It just depends on when that other shoe will be allowed to drop. When that happens they will have won.

Report this

By ofersince72, April 30, 2010 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

Obama Defies Congressional subpena
  of Ft Hood shootings

If this had been the Bush admin…
all of you Obama supporters would be
crying foul.

Report this

By truedigger3, April 30, 2010 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

Re:By JDmysticDJ, April 30 at 11:43 am #

Okay, I might has gone too far because I really don’t know what Obama really cares about, however, I still say that he is a Wall St. and corporate guy, through and through, and that all his policies and actions have proved and is proving that regardless of his oratory.
Talk and speeches are cheap but actions are what count.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 30, 2010 at 8:27 am Link to this comment

It is always nice to have a few Mr. or Ms. Smarty paints’
around, how do you know folks come up with all this stuff? 

Anyway, I always appreciate it when I can learn something
especially when they are facts.  One must be able to
decipher these facts from the ever-present decrees as
fiction!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 30, 2010 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

Mike,
You toss out another one of the phony arguments that the South was going to free its slaves if left alone.  You cite how other Western nations had done so (including, let’s not forget, the North).

However the actual documentary evidence is that the Southern states were moving in precisely the OPPOSITE direction.  Laws were enacted that more and more precisely defined a slave as property, not human, that explicitly laid out that a property owner was free to do anything or dispose of his property INCLUDING CHATTEL in any way he saw fit. 

Actions that, today, would get you thrown in jail if you did them to a dumb animal, were EXPLICITLY placed beyond the reach of the Law if an owner did them to his “property”.  Even murdering the slave in any way he chose, for any reason, under any circumstances was placed outside the Law’s reach.

Furthermore, the South had been working to impose its will and slave system on the North, by DEMANDING that states that had outlawed slavery were STILL responsible for returning runaway slaves, and that bounty hunters for escaped slaves be give free reign to enter Northern states in their hunt.  Those same bounty hunters were to be allowed THE SAME RIGHTS as the slave-owners to dispose of the captured slave as they chose.

This was called the “Fugitive Slave Act” and was rendered Constitutional under Roger Taney’s Court in the Dred Scott case. (Scott’s master had renounced slavery and agreed to pursue the case solely to settle the Constitution.  He freed Scott after the decision came down.)

So let’s drop this pipe dream that the South ever intended to end slavery on its own.  Maybe “ever” meant 1952 or 1962, but it sure as hell didn’t mean anytime in the 19th or early 20th centuries.

States do not get to decide what is and is not Constitutional. Not only was that definitively settled in 1865, it was LEGALLY settled in Marbury vs Madison when the US Supreme Court ruled that it and it alone was the ultimate decider of what was and was not Constitutional. 

You don’t like the government?  Elect a better one!  That’s all there is to it.  You think, like so many that your vote doesn’t count?  Well, then YOU need to organize and get enough people motivated to make changes.

But the will of the Majority can only (legally) be thwarted when someone’s rights are violated by that will.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 30, 2010 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

Truedigger3

Thank you for the synopsis on the causes of the Civil War. I have to admit that I found that part of U.S. History boring and baffling when it was taught in my High School U.S. History class. As I recall, I was preoccupied with thoughts of a girl named Barbara who was in that class, so I had my mind on other things, if you get my drift. I had hopes for Barbara, but unfortunately I lacked the necessary audacity to bring those hopes to fruition. All was not lost though, because I learned from that incident that audacity is sometimes necessary, and I eventually learned that women are attracted to men who are bold and daring, but that they are (Usually) put off by the brazen insolence part.

On a different note, your bold assertion that Obama, “doesn’t give a shit about the common folks,” strikes me as being audacious (The brazen insolence part.)

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 30, 2010 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

From what I have been told, George Bush was a history
major, sort of like Palin was an English major.  Not sure
what kind of book Bush has coming out but it may possibly
be a history book? 

I will be waiting for your book review!

Report this

By mike112769, April 30, 2010 at 7:06 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous: Isn’t it funny how all you Hopers resort to name-calling?

There’s not a bigoted bone in my body. The only group of people I don’t like are idiots. You and people like you are why we are in this mess. You are so convinced of your self-righteous superiority to anyone who disagrees with you that you refuse to even listen. Do not presume to lecture me on history, when you haven’t even studied any since high school. Learn the truth before you open your big mouth.

ITW: Yes, the Constitution is supposed to protect American citizens. The problem a lot of us are having is that our government no longer abides by this document.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 30, 2010 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

Wow! Does it get weirder and weirder?  JDMysticDJ posts two accurate and insightful posts on the Civil War, and truedigger3 backs him up with a further expansion on it!  What makes it weird is I fully agree with pretty much both.

The latest attempt to literally re-write “history”, regardless of the facts and documentary evidence is rather revolting. Next they’ll “prove” slavery wasn’t a violation of Liberty, and that Jim Crow laws benefited Blacks more than Whites…which is right up there with Flat-Earthers and anti-Evolutionists as self-serving falsehoods.

Report this

By truedigger3, April 29, 2010 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

JDmysticDJ wrote:
“The causes of war fascinate me. The Civil War is one of those wars where the causes are somewhat difficult to comprehend. I understand that there were some issues about states rights, and abject slavery and such.  So this concept of “Liberty” seemed to be very much an issue.”
_________________________________________________

The primary reason for the Civil War was a basic conflict of interests and philosophy between industrialists in the North and plantations owners in the South with the slavery and state rights as secondary reasons and tied to the primary reason.

The ruling elite in the South had most of their wealth tied down in Cotton and Tobaco plantations that are dependent on slave labor.

The plantations owners exported most of their crops to Europe and imported most of their manufactured goods from there and they wanted to expand these plantations and aqcuire more lands by investing their own money plus borrowing from the banks.
In the rapidly growing North by immigratioin, there were nascent industries that needed , and rightly so, protection from cheaper and better imports, and it also needed infrastructure from canals to rail roads to be built with subsidies from the Federal Government, and it also needed to be able to borrow capital from the banks with subsidies from the Federal Government.

The Federal Government to protect these industries had imposed high tarrifs on imported manufactured goods and used much of the proceeds to encourage and subsidise the nascent industries as I mentioned above.
The Southern elite deemed that situation unfair to them since now, due to tarrifs, they buy more expensive manufactured goods, and it is hard for them to borrow capital, since most of the capital was devoted to expanding industries in the North, besides most of the South Federal taxes and collected tarrifs were spent in the North for infrastructure to encourage industrialization.
The issue of State Rights came into play since the South wanted a weak Federal Government since the Federal Government was prefering to encourage industrialization and not plantations expansions and so was working against the Southern elite.
The issue of Slavery came into play because the North wanted to break the plantation system and free the resources to industrial expansion.
Of course, history was with industrialization and strong central government and had the South would have won, and kept the country as loosely connected mostly agricultural states, then the United States, within few decades would had been cut to pieces and devoured by the much more industrialized and advanced countries of Europe. No offence to my Southern brothers, good thing the South had lost and that was good for them too.

On a different note, in previous post, you expressed your “hopes” that Obama will “eventually” will do the “right things”.
Well you please stop dreaming and “hoping”, it is glaringly obvious, that Obama is a Wall St and corporate guy, through and through, and he doesn’t give a shit about the common folks.
He is a carbon copy of W Bush but with more skillful bullshitting oratory and command of the language.
I am baffled and surprised that you are still “hoping”.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 29, 2010 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

Reading your discussion with Mark Thomey, JDmysticDJ,
is also a pleasant experience for me, not that you would care
if it was.  It has inspired me to read more and learn more about
not only the Civil War, but war as a human entertainment.  Well
that was said as hyperbole, and I hope that was how it was taken. 
For war surely is not an entertainment.  If your figures are even close to
the dead from the Civil War, it is staggering.  Having not read about the
civil war since high school, seems it slipped into the slipstream of life
and into vague memory as much of life’s experiences do, I had not
realized just how vast the carnage was.  It puts all war in a different
and sobering perspective and I do trust that you are “fairly
knowledgeable about the consequence and causes of war and tyranny.” 
It seems that anyone who wants to make any coherent comments on
such subjects ought to also become familiar with the basics of war.  So
I thank whatever drew you to this forum, for so doing it.  Using the
word internecine, from the Latin internecinus, to describe a possible
gang war within the “Regime,” shows your good breeding.  Being a
member of the current Regime and supportive of the leader of the
current Regime, I am of the belief that it is a reformation that has been
going on since the day that most dangerous character took office.  So
we will see.  I look forward to more such analyses but if none is further
forthwith coming on this forum, I will find it in the new history books I
shall now investigatively read.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 29, 2010 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

Mark Thomey

The civil war is not my forte, so I may be historically/legally incorrect, but didn’t General Lee attack Fort Sumter, with the intent of moving on to capture Washington D.C.? Weren’t the Yankees trying to avoid being conquered?

“At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.”

Like I said, I’m not an enthusiast of war, I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable about the consequences and causes of war and tyranny. I am familiar with the basics of war though. I’m familiar with the concepts of cannon fodder, amputated limbs, severed limbs, melted eyeballs, disembowelment, crushed skulls, dead children and whatnot. Generally, those that are most effective at disembowelment claim a moral victory. While those that are disemboweled, claim a great moral injustice has occurred.

The causes of war fascinate me. The Civil War is one of those wars where the causes are somewhat difficult to comprehend. I understand that there were some issues about states rights, and abject slavery and such.  So this concept of “Liberty” seemed to be very much an issue. Take for example Jefferson Davis (later to be known as gutless Jeff) he was very eloquent when pontificating about “Liberty.” Gutless Jeff is one of those people, who did not receive his rightful place in history. For example, few people know that he was the author of the hypocritical oath.

I have very much enjoyed reading your comments. Truly, the joy that your comments have elicited has put me in a state of mirth. Reading another’s perspective on philosophy, history, current events, and the higher pursuits, can be very entertaining.

Your treatise on force was especially intriguing. I had no idea that force was exclusively, “Soviet, Marxist, and communist.” I’ll need to review history to see if I can verify that assertion.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 29, 2010 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment

Your allegory comparing Lincoln’s invasion and conquest of the southern states to assault and battery is a premise I’ll suggest that may be fallacious. Let me put it this way.

Supposing you assaulted me with the intent of beating the sh** out of me, and taking my wallet, but instead, I beat the sh** out of you and took your wallet. Wouldn’t that be a better allegory for the Civil War?

Regarding sovereignty, Gutless Jeff’s declaration that in America all men were sovereign was noble indeed. King Louis was to have nothing on us. I can only surmise that Gutless Jeff was on the verge of granting sovereignty to those who had no sovereignty; it’s too bad that the war broke out before he was able to accomplish that task. Those who had no life, liberty, and property would have been very pleased with their sovereignty I’m sure. It’s my understanding that many of those who had no sovereignty, were so eager for sovereignty that they seceded to the North. I understand that their mechanism for peacefully seceding to the North was the Union Atlantic Subway. It was a means to an end (Liberty.)

I like your use of the French word “Regime.” It shows your good breeding. French was the preferred language of royalty during the period that encompassed the Civil War. Also, it’s currently fashionable among certain radio personalities.

It’s tragic that the current “Regime” is destroying life, liberty, and property. It’s a good thing that the destroying of life, liberty, and property is not happening here, or the central bankers and corporations that currently own the “Regime” could possibly get angry, but I think the current owners are losing control of the “Regime.” I understand that our current “Regime” has become rebellious and uppity lately. The “Regime” is making demands of its owners, and has gone so far as to suggest that We the People are the “Regimes” owners. It’s a touchy situation; the “Regime” is acting like a bunch of Chicago gangsters, calling their owners in for a “sit-down.” The “Regime” is on the verge of internecine gang violence. Some of its members are loyal to the owners, while others want to work under the ownership of We the People. The current leader of the “Regime” is a dangerous character, and he represents the biggest gang in the nation. Hopefully there won’t be all out warfare. It’s possible that the “Regime” is only undergoing a reformation.

All this trouble started when the owners were weakened by takeovers, and demanded payoffs from the “Regime,” which had to extort money from We the People in order to make the payoffs. It’s a real mess, the owners aren’t paying vig, and they’ve been involved in a massive counterfeiting operation. I think the “Regime” has had it with the central bankers and the corporations, and We the People stands to benefit from a reformation.

Well that’s my analysis of current events; I hope you’ve learned something. Let me give you a little friendly advice. This hunkering and whatnot strikes me as being a fool’s errand, and not something that would be a good career choice. Really, Lincoln was offed by a gimpy lunatic actor, who was shouting gibberish about liberty, tyranny or some such blathering. The Marxists left some time later, so I don’t think there’s any danger that you’ll have to degrade yourself. Times are hard I know; it’s odd how things work out. Gutless Jeff’s future sovereigns were in abject slavery, now you’re concerned with abject slavery. Seceding is clearly your best choice. will you be seceding to the North? I hope you have a nice ride on the subway.

Report this
LocalHero's avatar

By LocalHero, April 29, 2010 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

It boggles my mind that there are real, live people on here talking about how voting, or a new kind of voting method, can fix the system. Do you people have TV’s, radio or the internet? Or maybe friends to talk to?

Voting is a hollow, absurd gesture by the prison warden to let the inmates think they have a say in how the prison is run and nothing more.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 29, 2010 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

Whattt whattt whatt! ofersince72, who said the
economic crisis is over?  Do you need better glasses too? 
Or is it that you just love ranting at people?  My goodness,
is that it?  Maybe you need to get your blood pressure
checked too before you collapse from apoplexy. 

mike112769 please, please don’t you dare put words and
meanings into my mouth.  You show yourself to be a bigoted ass and
that is not a probability.  Listening to someone who is clear and not a
babbling idiot is what I do.  Like so many others on this forum, you
make wild accusations without nary a piece of evidence.  And like I’ve
said to them, I am not saying you don’t have a gripe, you just haven’t
made a cogent case that your gripes are legitimate.  You certainly are
not short on ranting powers.  Do you conceitedly imagine you have
given us a history lesson in the causes of the American Civil War? 
LOL There are people here who could make your head swim from all
the history they know.  But you ought to start using your brain
instead of letting it run amuck.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 29, 2010 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

ofersince72.  You have made a number of qualitative
and emotional claims for the argument that talk of secession
is justifiable, but…you have not given any element in your
argument that you substantiated with fact.  You give all opinionated
conjecture.  It is too easy to hold an amorphous thing up for
judgment and another thing to be specific so that some definite action
could be taken to correct what you perceive to be problems.  You use
collective terms that are emotionally charged but really don’t assist
your accusations.  When terms like “whole” is used to describe a federal
election system that SUCKS, the indictment is completely ambiguous. 
For while the voting systems in place are various and nonuniform and
maybe a problem, you don’t seem to want to throw out voting as a
social action in itself. States are sovereign and have the absolute right
to dictate the voting process.  You would do your passions a service if
you were to be specific on each of your complaints and perhaps
convince a few people while you were at it.  For as it is, you act like
somebody’s father who is just ranting his head off.  I am not saying
you are wrong, just not convincing you are right.  For whatever they
are worth, please take my comments in the spirit they are made which
is to help rather than to demote.  My belief in autonomy and rights of
belief says you are entitled to believe anything you like and I respect
whatever choices you make. 

RenZo, inasmuch as you have not objected to my comment,
in return I would have to say I agree with you to a great degree.  The
remedies were definitely a stalling tactic.  My view is to allow a myriad
of actions to take hold as would a vaccination for a disease takes a bit
of time to become infused in the body to start creating antibodies to
fight the disease.  The dramatic simile to an Orwellian perspective is
fun, but not helpful.  Financial reform is the imperative and the
Republican congressmen are once again going to f’ up the works in
favor of Wall Street.  I’d name specific congressmen, but a list of all
Republican senators and house of representatives would be named.  So
no sense in being redundant.  That being said, whilst we wait for the
disease to be relieved and and hopefully cured by measures of reform,
what can we do except to contact our congressmen and senators to
vote the way we want them to?  Nothing short of their passing reform is
going to let our country’s financial system, the patient, live in a healthy
condition.

Report this

By ofersince72, April 29, 2010 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

What??  you mean all you have to do is throw money
at Wall Street and watch the Dow climb to say the
economic crisis is over??

Maybe someone needs to check the unemployment figures
first, especially the minority figures, then figure
in the REAL numbers, including the ones that have had
their insurance expire and are no longer counted, or
maybe the millions that are under-employed less than
full time with no benifits.
QUIT SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF just because you a more
fortunate.

Report this

By ofersince72, April 29, 2010 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

There are many damn good reasons for citizens talking
about secession, to me, the biggest reason would be
our fradulent election system that has so many people
disinterested in participating that we have one of the
lowest turnouts if not the lowest turnout in the world.
“Opening the floodgates”, like the floodgates haven’t
been open for the last forty years, like McCain, Feingold
did a damn bit of good.  But then, if the voters do
vote the incumbents out, the newlawmakers do just the
oppisite of what they were elected to do.
  If that weren’t enough, we have the phony primaries
which are even more important then the general elections.
Strung out in different states for almost a year, billions
of dollars wasted on candidates that aren’t worthy to
be carrying a lunch box. To add to this, there is nothing
uniform in federal elections at the polling booth, like
our government doesn’t, can’t afford, to even give us
uniformity in this process.  Their week resolve to address
this even a little bit is computerized tallies that hardly
any of the public trusts.
Our whole federal election system SUCKS, like a gigantic
vacuum cleaner, we still dispute who got elected,  in
what we like to call, the most democratic nation on the
face of the earth. Election reform should have been the
very first issue that the Democrat Party should have
taken upon getting elected majority in both Houses plus
the presidency.
WHY WOULDN’T ANYONE WANT TO LEAVE THIS DISGUSTING
ELECTION PROCESS ????????????????????????????????????
Billions and billions to participate ?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 29, 2010 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

Additionally, as Jefferson Davis said, if there is one thing about the system of American government that is as sure as the sun rising in the east, it is that NO government is sovereign.  Only The People are sovereign, and they possess the God-given right to alter or ABOLISH any form of government that is destructive of their life, liberty, and property. Secession is the mechanism for peacefully abolishing a People’s association with one government in favour of establishing a new one.  Union is a means to and end (liberty), not an end in itself.
*************************************************

Right. Only the PEOPLE are sovereign. And the way the VOICE of the PEOPLE is expressed is through powers and structures agreed to in THE US CONSTITUTION!

I’ve read that document many, many time and I have NEVER discovered a “right” of secession!

Lincoln’s “invasion” is BULLSHIT!  He was President of The United States—ALL of the United States, including the treasonous South.  As such he had the RIGHT and even DUTY to place Federal forces ANYWHERE he deemed necessary to the national security.

If you are President, it is NOT POSSIBLE to “invade” any state that is a member of the Union.  He had EVERY legal right to reinforce Fort Sumpter. The South’s firing on that fort was an act of VIOLENT REBELLION which is, of course, fundamentally treason.

READ THE CONSTITUTION!

Just more bullshit from Southern racists who idealize slavery and Jim Crow and will find ANY justification for it.

Report this

By mike112769, April 29, 2010 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

Mark Thomey: Bravo sir! Well said.

As for thinking everyone down South was happy under W; think again. What we are seeing now is a result of the policies W started. Mr. Hope and Change endorsed about every damned one of them. It wouldn’t matter if the laughable duo of McCain/Palin were in the White House, or Obama, Nader or anyone else. The people are just simply getting fed up with the BS shovelled out by Washington. Disagreeing with Obama does not make you a racist, and playing that card is a purely desperate act. I live in Tennessee, and I voted for Obama. I gave him a chance, and he lied, as usual for a politician.

Shenonymous: I don’t care if you agree with me or not. You are probably like a lot of people and refuse to see the harsh truth staring you in the face. ITW is right there with you. Anything Washington wants to do to you is fine, as long as they keep you safe from the scary Middle Easterners who want to kill us all! ITW refuses to believe that “Armageddon” is possible. People like that, who refuse to listen when someone is talking, can make Armegeddon happen by ignoring reality. A huge number of Americans are unhappy. If Washington, and the people who have faith in Washington, refuse to listen to their fellow countrymen and work with them to fix these issues, it will get very bad here.

Washington is eroding our rights, inch by inch, day by day, telling us it’s for our own good. The sad thing is that so many sheeple believe them. How many lies will it take for you to realize you’re being conned?

I believe we can fix our country through discourse. If, however, the government refuses to talk or listen; what then? What would you do? How much do you truly value Liberty for our children? Are we really going to let it come to that?

Just because the North won the Civil War, don’t think that the issue of States’ Rights was settled. To paraphrase Mark Thomey: “Just because you whipped our asses, it doesn’t mean you were right.” Don’t even think of saying that I endorse slavery. Slavery was a States’ Rights issue. Every other civilized nation in the world freed their slaves without a fight. Lincoln did not want a peaceful separation. Lincoln made sure that the South had no choice. He wanted a fight with the South to MAKE them stay in the Union. He wanted America to become a giant nation to better compete with other, foreign powers. The Civil War was not started over slavery, but the States’ Rights issue of self-determination.

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, April 29, 2010 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

@Shenonymous, Apr 28 10:46pm#

“Now that the financial collapse has been put in check”

I would have objected if you had written “Now that the financial collapse has been put in checkMATE…” because I think they have only forestalled the total collapse, or total giveaway to the bankers. It is hard to imagine a fictional universe where bankers would do what they have done, and there would still be opposition to REGULATING them. Outrage means nothing in this alternate universe where fox-speak, like Orwell’s new-speak simply turns lies into truth and “we” go on to the next spectacle, as if nothing touches us.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 29, 2010 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment

All this talk of succession makes me hungry for a rat
burgers, the ideas of exchanging federal opportunists
for state opportunists seems so exciting. 

This means Alaska can have Palin as president or Queen
or what ever kind of government they want. Though I have
a feeling if this happened in Alaska, Palin’s first
proclamation would be to change the states name after
one of her kids, I am looking forward to that!

With all the Jefferson Davis quotes I have seen lately,
one sort of questions why some people from the South
haven’t left sooner? Oh yeah,..... I forgot we had Bush
as president for eight years and things were so Southern
acceptable then, at least in the whitey house?

A simple fact is, “might makes right”! This does not
mean it is right or has to even be close to right, so
what! Well, that’s the way it is and always has been, so
until something new comes along, like maybe a Southern
Gandhi or a Texas Marten Luther King, just keep calling
everyone else a Yankee, nice way to get the name calling
support going.

I stated it before, Mexico can have Texas, Arizona and
Mississippi….. and all the ignorance, bigotry and
mentally inbred baggage that comes with them.

Of course my concerns mean nothing, except to me. Just
as my closed minded opinions and my unsubstantiated
stereotypes seem packaged in with the normal illusions
and delusions.

“Take your state” ..............“Please”!

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, April 29, 2010 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

Mark Thomey, what Lincoln did, has settled it. But it didn’t stop those of many persuasions to want to have their own version of what they consider to be better gov’t. Secession will always be treason to that union established no matter how they were originally acquired. Believe you me if the Cascadian Republic were formed I would want to move to it. If it were in fact a real idea for a real Pacific North West country.* To me too large isn’t so good. I would like to see the big countries like USA, Russia, China, India & Argentina break up into smaller polities. It could happen as things get worse from resource depletion and climate change would cause it. Also a countervailing force is larger and larger unifications too will go on.

*Fiction web site.

Report this

By Jon, April 29, 2010 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Note:  Chris, please pressure the TruthDig managers to get a good iPod-Touch/iPhone app going.  What they have presently makes it very hard to read the site—-one is always trying to enlarge the text and instead, gets an ad sometimes. 

Regarding this column:  I think many Americans realize how sick and dysfunctional ‘Constitutional Republic’ has become, and realize also that radical measures are required.  Just emailing Congress and or voting for Dems or the GOP is not working.  Arizona has in my view, drawn a line in the sand, and it’s high time:  more states, such as Vermont and others, need to decide to stand up to Washington—-we’re being eaten alive by D.C. and the banks.  Enough.  I’m in.  Of course, DHS views anyone not supporting the status quo, including those who have the guts to cite the Constitution as terrorists.  So American grass roots movements will be met by DHS as if we were terrorists.  England viewed the rebelling Colonists similarly of course.

Report this

By Mark Thomey, April 29, 2010 at 8:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Inherit the Wind:
What you’re saying has no basis in law or in principle.  It is only upheld by one thing - force.  Force is not liberty.  Force is not law - except the ‘law of the jungle’.  Force, as a basis of making otherwise free people adhere to a particular government, can in no way be construed as a founding American principle.  The only adjectives that correctly describe that arrangement are soviet, marxist, and communist.  If that’s what you’re for, at least be honest enough to say so.  Don’t make such foolish and historically/legally incorrect statements and pass them, and yourself, off as fundamentally American.  They are not.

Saying that lincoln’s invasion and conquest of the South settles the legality/constitutionality of secession is equivalent to saying that because I can physically beat the sh** out of you and take your wallet that assault and battery and stealing are not illegal.  You would not buy the latter argument for a moment.  You’d say that just because I can beat you up and take your wallet doesn’t make it legal.  Yet, you swallow the lincolnian lie of the illegality of secession hook, line, and sinker.
Both the illegality of secession according to yankee conquest, and the legality of assault and robbery, are erroneous conclusions reached by starting with false premises and using fallacious logic. 

Additionally, as Jefferson Davis said, if there is one thing about the system of American government that is as sure as the sun rising in the east, it is that NO government is sovereign.  Only The People are sovereign, and they possess the God-given right to alter or ABOLISH any form of government that is destructive of their life, liberty, and property. Secession is the mechanism for peacefully abolishing a People’s association with one government in favour of establishing a new one.  Union is a means to and end (liberty), not an end in itself.

Anyone who truly loves and desires liberty can not look at the current regime and come to any other conclusion than that it is destructive of life, liberty, and property.  It is owned and controlled by the central bankers and corporations, and it long ago ceased, in any shape or form, to represent We the People.  The recent rash of bail-outs, business take-overs, and ‘health care’ should convince even the dullest person of that fact.  Reform is a fool’s errand.  Third parties are a fool’s errand, because they are premised on the reformability of the regime.  If only we could put the right people in Washington!  BS!  Those who own Washington, and like the way it rapes us for their benefit, won’t let that happen.

So what option is left to us?  Just hunker down, take it up the poop chute, and hope it gets better because lincoln and his marxist allies said so 145 years ago?  As I said earlier, you can kiss my Rebel a** on that one.  I don’t want to live under a ‘kinder and gentler’ form of marxism.  I want to live in a truly free country.  For that to happen, secession is the only option.  Anything else is surrendering to abject slavery. 

‘What I have mainly at heart is American liberty, and secondly American union.’  Patrick Henry, Great Southerner

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, April 29, 2010 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

@JDmysticDJ,April 29 - 6:52am

And you called my posting a rant!

You are an excellent debater, and I would like (for the sake of the intellectual honesty you have burned my feet with) to respond immediately and completely. Duties prevent me.
I enjoy reading your thoughts, which have great merit and are clearly disposed at length in your patient postings. Thank you. I hope to return later. You will be the first to know when I am back (figure of speech only).

Report this

By omop, April 29, 2010 at 6:30 am Link to this comment

All those for Secession can almost guarantee that they will have what all those
neocons/likudniks already have. Two passports and dual citizenships. One with
US citizenship and the other with the US’s only democratice ally in the world.

Come to thinl of it why not pass a law and make all those illegal immigrants dual
citizens too. Why not some ask?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 29, 2010 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

A lot of you on here seem to think that anyone who is for secession is a racist retard.
*******************************************

Yup. And actively encouraging treason.  As you said, it’s only NOT treason if you pull it off—and are in the seceding state.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 29, 2010 at 2:52 am Link to this comment

Renzo

I see that my post touched a nerve, and sparked a rant. Rants are good entertainment, but they are frequently not well reasoned, or logical, and they are prone to emphasizing personal attack, rather than rational debate.

Elitist liberals, what are they guilty of? They’re guilty of being elitists, aren’t they? Elitists, who support the status quos, are doing so because they support the status quos, not because they are being bamboozled by the status quos. Your contention that they are “stupid tools” and not elitists has some merit, but it seems to be more intended as a personal attack, rather than a rational definition. I’ll suggest that those who promote neo-liberalism do so because they believe in neo-liberalism, and those who are the apologists for neo-liberals are those who defend neo-liberals “like Obama.” If it “sounds like” I am one, I wonder if you have heard my criticisms of Obama’s policies, not just here, but all over truthdig.

“Leaning, cracked pillars”? I like that as a metaphor; it indicates supporting a decaying structure, doesn’t it? Of course taking a wrecking ball to the “leaning, cracked pillars” would cause the structure to collapse. Hopefully, we’ll have another functioning structure available for use, before we bring in the wrecking ball.

I would agree that politicians seek to get elected or re-elected, whether that is their primary goal as a politician is debatable, and furthermore, the degree of “kow-towing” would vary from politician to politician, wouldn’t it? I’ll suggest that republicans are very actively occupied with “kow-towing,” to corporate interests at the present time, democrats less so. (Sorry, I hate to talk about political realities; it really pisses people off.) I agree wholeheartedly when you say politicians who “kow-tow” to corporate interests are “Stupid Tools.” When I point out that republicans are more prone to toolery, does that make me a “stupid tool”? Many here at truthdig seem to think so; others think I’m a totalitarian Marxist. I’d like to think I’m neither, but what do I know?


Your criticism of Obama is a novel one; you need to hurry and get a copyright. I’ll suggest that it wasn’t “someone” who “Got to him” but instead, a something, that has caused him to seemingly renege. That something, I’m guessing, would be political reality. When you say “someone got to him,” who are you thinking of? Would it be: Luca Braze, a corporate hit man, someone from the illuminati-free masons-mossad-the military industrial complex-Skull and Bones-whoever destroyed the twin towers-Corporate fascist thugs-Rahm Emanuel-Michelle? Just asking, it would be nice to know, rather than be enveloped in a delusory cloud of paranoid suspicion. Sorry, this boogieman theory strikes me as being sophomoric, and fabricated with no evidence of any kind to support it, and yet I’ve seen it offered from others. The source of this theory, I suspect, is Mike Malloy. Maybe Malloy has some evidence he’s not sharing, or maybe it’s just a flamboyant bit of unfounded boogieman hyperbole.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 29, 2010 at 2:37 am Link to this comment

Renzo (Cont.)

We do have special interests that do their best to influence our government, and we have some very powerful special interest groups that have a great deal of influence, but believing they dictate, rather than influence, is refuted by actual events, some recent, and some current. Clearly, special interest groups have the capacity to do great harm to democracy, the reality of their existence dictates that we elect and support politicians who are the least susceptible to being influenced.

You’ve identified “Empire,” as being a great evil. I would prefer the term “Evil Empire” It is very real, and it’s like a vampire that sucks blood, and money, the question becomes, how do we drive a stake through the vampire’s heart? It seems obvious to me that assigning the stake driving to the vampire’s vampire buddies doesn’t make a lot of sense. To me, vampire is a good metaphor for all republicans, and predatory Capitalists. I don’t believe this metaphor is hyperbole, I believe that current events support my metaphorical contention. A coalition of rightists; Corporatists/Capitalists/Neocons/Republicans, are the admitted or tacit advocates of “Empire” and the initiators of our current difficulties, and atrocities.

I’m very tired of pointing out the lesser of two evils, over, and over, and over again. A viable alternative means a third party that actually has the ability to change policy. This viable alternative is non-existent, if it were existent; we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Supporting an infected democratic party is at best, a holding action, until a hoped for alternative is available, or the infection is cured.

Lie: “A false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.” Many believe Obama lied. I don’t. Obama has been a disappointment of a magnitude too difficult to express, and he has been, and continues to be, in my view, horribly misguided. I believe Obama is enveloped by political problems he is unable to deal with. He is not an omnipotent dictator, he is restrained by political realities, and like all politicians who endeavor to do the will of the people, he is conflicted by his personal beliefs, the opinions of his advisors, and the demands of his constituents.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, April 29, 2010 at 2:14 am Link to this comment

Renzo (Cont.)

Unfortunately, the latest major polls show majority support for the war in Afghanistan. The idea that Obama could, or would take unilateral action to bring the troops home, or rule by edict is absurd. It would be contrary to the desires of the American people, his advisors, and to his own personal beliefs about governance. If you, Renzo, were president, I’m sure I would support your actions, but those actions would more than likely get you impeached, or strung up.
 
“Liberal incrementalism {sic}” which I do advocate, opens the door for “… a movement which might eventually succeed,” whereas,

“…Starting over with a clearly stated new philosophy of government (like the Gettysburg Address’s ‘of the, by the and for the’) would teach the people what government should be and what their role should be.”

I personally don’t believe this has much chance of being successful. Who is going to do this teaching? And are, “of the, by the, and for the,” going to be open to this teaching, or will they have ideas of their own about, “What government should be, and what their role should be.” Please, get real, pipe dreams are nice, and personal, but they are the exclusive property of the dreamer. Dylan’s “I’ll let you be in my dream, if I can be in yours,” is probably not doable, in terms of building a government, unless there would be a very strong controlling hand, assigning the dreams.

“Our goal is so far from immediacy that we alive now are not likely to live under such novel form of government, but education like this is generations in the making, like the end to racism, equality of women, gay rights, and even animal rights. Who will change the popular misconceptions if not us (failing) intellectuals?”

Incrementally, intellectuals will change the “Popular misconceptions” and their intellect will be questioned, by potentially dangerous reactionaries, at each increment. The challenge will be keeping these reactionaries pacified.

“Sabotage is not necessarily violence,” but it is frowned upon by many, and it gives oppressors the excuse they need for oppression, and has the added bonus, for oppressors, of creating popular support for their oppression.

States suing the Federal Government is, States suing the Federal Government. Secession is something else, isn’t it? States suing the Federal Government for secession would cause a bit of trouble, wouldn’t they?. I guess it would be a form of “Sabotage.” Long live Sabotage! Viva Muerte! Damn! This nihilism is fun stuff. Sorry, I don’t mean to make light of this well reasoned political action. I guess an incremental secession of the States would destroy the Empire. Hopefully the judges who decide the suits will have the proper nihilist perspective. “The South’s Gonna’ Do it Again” Charlie Daniels will be fidlin’ his ass off. This will definitely end the wars. Litigate! I’m for it! Right back at yuh with your shock doctrine. Eeeeeeehaw! (For some reason I’m thinking of Slim Pickens ridin’ a nuke.)

Well, I guess I am an apologist for Obama. I’m hoping he’ll get it right eventually. I’m glad it’s him, and not me, or you. If Hedges were to throw his hat in the ring, I’d vote for him, providing he has enough “syncophants{sic}” to be able to influence policy.

The issues are far too important. I believe this kind of distraction is only a diversion from more rational solutions. If we are serious about ending the madness, I believe, we’ll have to take unified action, and be specific about our grievances, and not let factionalism divert us from our achievable, well focused, and mutually agreed upon, but limited goals.

Political chaos kills, or, allows the killing to continue.

Report this

By Morpheus, April 29, 2010 at 12:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There is a better way to bring about fundamental change. Join the Revolution.

 Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( http://revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

Report this

By David Bingham, April 28, 2010 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I see many comments that reflect the talking points of both political parties.  Many false or incorrect statements no facts no sources cited.  Propaganda is embedded in all forms of media.  There is a war going on already you just don’t see it. The violence against the people has been going on for many years. Inform yourselves, give up belief.  Anything you can’t know is absolutely true must be questioned.  Your religion too.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 28, 2010 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

mike12769, would you be all right with it if anyone disagreed
with you?

Next question:  To what degree could you tolerate
disagreement?

Finally:  If someone totally disagreed with you, how would you
handle that?

Now that the financial collapse has been put in check, has turned the
corner and no financial doomsday is on the horizon, what will the
faultfinders do then, poor things?  No one is saying it will be an easy
haul, or that the hill is not steep, but the load will get to the top
sooner than the detractors really want to know and The American
People will have even made a buck or two. It would seem that the best
thing to do is to be effective in neutralizing the Republican blocking
financial reform.

Report this

By Taco Smell, April 28, 2010 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Texas…‘It’s like a whole other Country’...And it is.

Report this

By mike112769, April 28, 2010 at 5:04 pm Link to this comment

Make no mistake, there will come a time when America falls apart. Nothing lasts forever. I don’t see it happening any time soon, but I may be wrong.

Secession is treason. That’s a fact. It is also a fact that sometimes (“In the course of human events…”)secession is the only viable option for the bulk of the populace. Actually, it’s only treason if you lose. If you win, it’s a Revolution.

A lot of you on here seem to think that anyone who is for secession is a racist retard. If so, then you are actively supporting and condoning what America has become. The fact is, we are not who we say we are.

Our “leaders” in Washington have, for most of a century, been selling the people of this country out. They tell us what we want to hear to get elected, and ignore us and their promises when they get into office. So answer me this: What do we do when our political leadership no longer represent us?

The people of this country have CLEARLY stated that they want an end to foreign wars, an end to sending money to other countries, and they want our troops back home. The time for Imperialism is over, but Washington apparently doesn’t realize this.

We elected Obama to do these things for us, as he promised REPEATEDLY to do. As soon as he is in office, he continues the same policies as his predecessor, and in some cases he makes them worse! How are the people supposed to deal with this? Every time we ask for something to be done, we are told how little we know about the “global realities”, and to basically shut up and do as we are told.

One of the founding principles of America was “No taxation without representation”; well, see how that works now? The vast majority of people did NOT want the new health care bill, but it was shoved down our throats anyway. THAT is the very essence of not having a voice in our government. When politicians do as they please and ignore the people, that is more akin to Fuedalism than Republicanism.

When a government ignores its people repeatedly, what are we to do? For a lot of people, revolt makes more sense than sticking your head in the sand and hoping things will get better by voting.

The system is broken, and can NOT be fixed. Over the last 75 years, our government has repealed and “reformed” nearly every fundamental principle that this country was founded upon. We are in the same boat now (economically) as we were in in the late 1920s and 1930s.

Bring our troops home. Spend our tax money on American citizens, with NOT ONE DIME to ANY foreign country. Enforce our current immigration laws. End loopholes for corporations that enable them to pay less in taxes per year than the average citizen. Hold politicians accountable for their actions (looking at you, Bush, Cheney, et al.). Do these things, and the People will be a lot less inclined to believe that another Revolution is our only option. Please don’t kid yourselves into thinking there can ever be a bloodless revolution. It’s sad to say, but I think there will be a day, sooner than most of us know, that armed revolt will happen here…again.

What real choice do we honestly have? If we continue to play by their rukes, we will lose. The government needs to be reminded who makes the rules in this country.

Report this

By ofersince72, April 28, 2010 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

What could really solve a lot of these problems..

Go back to Philadelphia and have another

Constitutional Convention and update it to deal
with modern times and not a document for the rich
and privaliged class, put some environmental law it
with it.

Mr. Obama, I sure would have liked to been a fly on the
wall during one of your lectures at Harvard,  at what
point in your lecture did you OK the assassanation
without trial, torture, detention policy, and please
veto, no matter how they send this bill you, the
McCain, Lieberman Detention Policy Bill.  PLEASE.

Report this

By ofersince72, April 28, 2010 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment

if any district should want to secede and be very well
within their rights it is..

the District of Columbia..  That still doesn’t have a
vote.

Why didn’t the Democrat leadership just say…
This will be an up and down vote with NO amendments?>
When they were voting on something so important as
citizen’s voting rights, why offer the same amendments
that have killed that bill every time it is put up for
vote?/  They had a majority, plus sixty Senators and
a Democrat president.
I know the answer to that question, does any one else?

Report this

By samosamo, April 28, 2010 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

*******************************


By Shenonymous, April 28 at 1:12 pm #
““samosamo - could we saw up husbands into little pieces
if he isn’t liked anymore instead of the poor women who
always gets the foot and fist?  I mean most guys act like
they are wooden heads anyway and are ready for the saw.”“
*********************************

Hey, it’s a free world so to speak, have at it, as I am sure of the
possibility of there being more men deserving ‘of being sawed
into little pieces’ than women/wives, well deserving.

Report this

By rolmike, April 28, 2010 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

Since abortion is legal, especially of ill-conceived
babies, why not abort certain states, e.g. Oklahoma,
Arizona… these two former Indian Territories were
settled by killers and robber. Let them deal on their
own, say, with Mexico. Let Alaska secede, give it a kick
in the rear, let the Russians have it again! Mississippi?
Alabama? we’ll set you loose, drift on off into the
Gulf. Texas and its killer mentality, by by black bird I
say. Come to think of it, why not disintegrate the whole
damn union, form regions at most: NEW ENGLAND, NEW
SKANDINAVIA [WISCONSIN, MINNESOTA, THE DAKOTAS] NEW
BLAGOVITCH = ILLINOIS; INDIANA is forced to live up to
its name and is resettled by the tribes… what a horror
to the world this monstrous imperium has become!

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 28, 2010 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

RenZo, thank you for the translation.  I don’t know
Sanskrit,  I thought the saying was Jewish!  haha I like to
borrow from them because they have the greatest sayings. 
Like, “In the Beginning…”  which always leaves questions
begging.  Oh well, oiy vey (I might have gotten that wrong
too, I’m always on the wrong side of the tracks for some
people).  Now, I know I can be obscure, but not like Republican
Obscurantists, a different species and no relation, so I do not intuit
what your lack of understanding is about my “latest posting.”  Is it the
part about woodenheaded men?  Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to say that again.  I was just taking off, humorously, you
know, She the kidder, from samosamo’s ending comment of his
first paragraph April 28 at 12:51 pm.  Laugh laugh.  Now the previous
post was very complex in intention and too many things to ‘weed’
through for the obscure notion.  Of course the whole thing could be
obscure, as obscurity goes.  I have to say I am at a loss on how to
respond to you.  And that might be a first. 

Here is some appropriate music for this forum for the dancers of
seccession….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVzdcnLUbd4&feature=related
Would “THEY” be coming afta’me?  The male and female
woodenheads?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 28, 2010 at 9:39 am Link to this comment

Anyone notice the error message and rewrite of this Hedges article? Well, it is nice to know Hedges just dosn’t make this stuff up, he gets it from someplace!

Report this
RenZo's avatar

By RenZo, April 28, 2010 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

@ shenonymous
“yada yada yada” is Sanskrit for ‘when, whenever, whereas’. What a scholar! I don’t however understand you latest posting.

@ JDmysticDJ
“and that some, so called liberals, are guilty of elitism, but the reality is that the alternative to the left is stupid,  mean spirited, and dangerous”

I don’t disagree that half of our political system (at least) “is stupid, mean spirited and dangerous”. I think, as I believe Chomsky does(?), that the “liberals” are not so much guilty of elitism as ignorant of how they are being used. But, really, is it better to be stupid tool than to be elitist? Apologists for neo-liberal-corporatists like Obama (yes it sounds like you are one) are leaning, cracked, crumbling pillars for other neo-liberal-corporatists like Clinton-Obama-Pelosi who seek first, to get re-elected, second, to get re-elected, and finally, third, to get re-elected. This inevitably, at some point in the process, means lying and deceiving the ‘people’ who vote, and kow-towing to the corporate interests who support them in their first three objectives. Wow, that sounds like the definition of ‘stupid tools’ also.

Neo-liberal-corporatists in office deserve no more respect than someone else who lies about their ability to do a specific job then doesn’t do the specific job. Obama, to my best recollection, said one thing while running and now says & does a totally OTHER thing in office. Either someone got to him (as in took him to the woodshed) or he was a liar from the beginning. In either case, The Empire Continues, against ‘our’ wishes, and we are taxed to support it. The world is watching, and holds us responsible. It is clear, to me at least, who is in charge…(and I think it is now clear to Obama, if indeed it was ever unclear).

Liberal incrementalism, such as you seem to advocate, Mystic, avoids the immediate new beginning of a movement which might eventually succeed, whereas starting over with a clearly stated new philosophy of government (like the Gettysburg Address’s ‘of the, by the and for the’) would teach the people what government should be and what their role should be. Our goal is so far from immediacy that we alive now are not likely to live under such novel form of government, but education like this is generations in the making, like the end to racism, equality of women, gay rights, and even animal rights. Who will change the popular misconceptions if not us (failing) intellectuals?

Finally, “sabotage is not necessarily violence” (Donna Fritz), nor even property destruction. And in this vein, obstructionism (like e.g. states suing the federal government) is one kind of secession. It doesn’t have to be violent. Some form of major resistance is necessary. Only a shock(the bigger the faster it’s felt) can cut through this corporatist brown-nosing by neo-liberal syncophants in and out of office.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 28, 2010 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

samosamo - could we saw up husbands into little pieces
if he isn’t liked anymore instead of the poor women who
always gets the foot and fist?  I mean most guys act like
they are wooden heads anyway and are ready for the saw.

Report this

By Dakotahgeo, April 28, 2010 at 9:09 am Link to this comment

I’m all for that…cut ‘em loose!!

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 28, 2010 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

With respect, Dakotahgeo, what makes you so sure that Mordor-on-the-Potomac (or as you refer to it, “corporate America”) will retain control of world and domestic events, seemingly forever? The way I see things, the USA could hang together as a united country IF it renounces interventionism and militarism; IF it ends its overseas wars and entangling alliances; IF it begins spending its people’s tax monies on improving life over here, and not on ungrateful foreign countries. Those are awfully big IFs, aren’t they? The Status Quo is poisonous; it can’t last much longer.

Report this

By Bill Owen, April 28, 2010 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

Aside from the fact that Rome will not allow this.

Who gets the nukes?

Report this

By samosamo, April 28, 2010 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Of recent history, the last couple of months or so, texass has
really become a paradigm of anti-social behavior, what with the
manipulation of school text books and the fervor of those who
want out of the U.S.A. and now we come down to even newer
lows with the idea that if you don’t like your wife, just saw her
up into kindling to get rid of her:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36825413/ns/us_news/

Might be even be wiser to just let texass go AND to build that
‘wall’ around it to keep them texassans from sneaking back out
into the u.s.a.

Report this

By Dakotahgeo, April 28, 2010 at 8:23 am Link to this comment

No state will secede unless and until CORPORATE AMERICA gives it permission to leave! End of discussion!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 28, 2010 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

What’s with the Texas Rangers, (not the scratch ass base ball team, or is it football?)  they are supposed to always get their man,.....(yeah the Holly Hunter Rangers, now that is more like it)  but I am talking about what’s his name…..something…. “Texas Ranger”?  Recently,  I have seen him on TV advertising a vacuum cleaner or something.  Wasn’t he on TD here a while back supporting McCain in Arazona, another classic sunny state where Vietnam D deficiency of the brain is rampart, because their heads never see the sun.

You know I raised cattle, and never rode a horse, (well, I have a phobia of horses) and I never yelled or whistled at them either.  I always saved my yelling and whistling energy for the girls back when I was a few years younger. Well cowboys seem to always be getting ready for a panty raid or something?  I never rode a cow either, why would I?  Just the name….. cowboy seems one for the books!  COWBOY…... I can just imagine what their resumes look like in Texas, no writing, just photos of them posing with their favorite bull and Dallas cheerleader and of course their horse!

Okay ITW,.... you are right, they had one or three real good people who seemed to show an ability to think and reason and they still have Highttower who is always on the radio above a tobacco shop or something called the whine and groan!  Hightower must be a real stick up their arse being the only black sheep in the State, which is kind of funny when you think of it…....... one black sheep in a state full of Cowboys!

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, April 28, 2010 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

By omygodnotagain, April 26 at 10:40 am #

“This country is owned by Wall Street and its foreign policy is controlled by a tribal, militaristic and dishonest Israeli lobby, who slanders those that criticize it. Many people are sick of it.”


===============

Becoming Gods

Ethnically Cleansing Palestinians

By Chris Hedges.

April 08, 2010

“The author spoke at the Revolution Books Town Hall Meeting at Ethical Culture Society on January 13, 2009 condemning Israel and USA complicity in Israel’s murderous destruction and genocide of the innocent men, women and children of GAZA and the West Bank.

~~~~~~~~~~

Click on link to watch 2 short videos of Chris Hedges speech…he “Dares to speak Out”:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25167.htm

Report this

By Hangtime, April 28, 2010 at 6:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The bus is over the cliff. So quit bitchin’ and enjoy what’s left of the ride.

Report this

By Mijan, April 28, 2010 at 6:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paolo, your assessment of New Hampshire as a “red state” is erroneous.  New Hampshire, if anything, is purple.  It believes, generally, in low taxes and minimal government interference, yes, but also in maximum civil liberties.  It’s one of the states that has equal marital rights for gays.  I’d call it “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”  Or perhaps
socially progressive” is more accurate.  And as a someone who spend most of my life there, I can say most of us like it that way.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, April 28, 2010 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

The affliction:  Twilight Dreaming.

“CH opinions are not garbage…”  Right!  They belong in the toilet! 
“It also seems to me that not one person in US knows why US is now
in iraq, palestine, and afpak.”
  and I suppose a Canadian does? 
How ridiculous.  “Mr. Hedges has a sound conclusion to his article” 
And that sound is wwhinnnnnneee.  “It’s also clear that the poster
inherit the wind is some sort of troll pissing into the ?wind in this
arena.”
  Well ITW’s piss is a lot better than all the shit from the
malcontents that has showed up in this arena.  “Excellent article by
Mr. Hedges. Logical, well reasoned…”
  Well-reasoned does not mean
rational.  Even madmen can reason well. Consistency in thinking does
not mean the premises are correct.  “Capitalism & its governments
are suffering the pangs of anachronism. Please excuse the controllable
fits and spasms as it withers and dies.”
  Uh, make that
“uncontrollable” The dying wish of disgruntled communists.  Adam
Smith was vindicated by the American project and will be again. 
Nothing is constant and economies rise and fall according to many
factors in social dynamics.  If capitalism has corruption it was shown to
be worse in the communistic giants that failed as well.  Please show
how the Russian people and the Chinese people and the Cuban people
benefitted one scrap under the communist form of oppressed
government. 

Secessionism is only possible by constitutional ratification.  That is not
going to happen short of war and the US guvamint has the national
militia and all its armed forces at its fingertips.  It is twilight dreaming
to think this is going to happen because a handful of constipated
malcontents are moaning….again.  The fanatics are still running around
and in their screaming mode….again.

Regulated capitalism with state provided redistributive programs such
as Social Security, Medicare, etc., is the best organization for a huge
nation to exist progressively and prosperously.  Did you know that
corporate is a synonym for socialistic?  Socialistic means common, held
in common to be precise, and corporate means collective, yada yada
yada.  ‘State administered’ does not necessarily mean ‘state owned.’ 

Yup, 5 Yups She is opening the flood gates once again.  The tears thus
doth floweth. Let the tears cleanse the mind and the real will of the
people will prevail.  Americans love their democracy and iPods.

Report this
Paul_GA's avatar

By Paul_GA, April 28, 2010 at 5:39 am Link to this comment

Truedigger3, with respect, the USA is just like any other country; its existence is not ordained of God. I like to quote Isaiah 40:15 and 40:17 on this—“Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance ... All nations before Him are as nothing; and they are counted to Him less than nothing, and vanity.”

OK, so maybe the USA is more resilient than I think; if it is, I’ll own up to it. But if the only way to maintain its unity (which, in this case, will mean the existence of the Empire) is to do so by inflicting bloodshed and violence on the very people whose loyalty it depends upon, then the American State’s slogans of “liberty” and “freedom” will be putrid lies.

As for China, I believe they’re biding their time, waiting for the moment when this country will clearly have shot its bolt, and economic considerations be damned. Think of the 36 stratagems, phrases like “relax while the enemy exhausts himself” and “watch the fires burning across the river”, not to mention “kill with a borrowed knife”. I also think that they’re far more resilient than the USA because they’re more used to authoritarianism and dictatorship than we Americans are (and poverty, too). And don’t forget Sun Tzu: “To win one hundred straight battles is not the acme of skill in war, but rather, to defeat an enemy without fighting.”

I must remain unrepentant in my belief that the USA could be on the verge of an even bigger fall than the Soviet Union’s fall two decades ago. It’s folly to think that such an outcome is impossible. All empires must eventually come to an end; my fear, as I said before, is that our empire’s end will be especially messy, because the Elites in Mordor-on-the-Potomac can’t or won’t see that things are on the skids.

Report this

By Dakotahgeo, April 28, 2010 at 5:11 am Link to this comment

Texas is free to secede any time the citizens vote to do so; however, they MUST take Arizona with them. It’s kinda like a two-fer sale… If you buy the Kansas City Royals, we’ll throw in the Chiefs for free, or vis versa.  The only question is… where the hell they gonna go???!!! Everybody is coming FROM Mexico to these two deserts in the sun. They would die from living amongst themselves; I wouldn’t wish that on anyone!

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 28, 2010 at 3:45 am Link to this comment

Don’t forget Texas Hold’em, LF!

And there’s those abominations: The Dallas Cowboys (who can’t be “America’s Team” if they secede) and Texas Barbecue—Yech! Compared to a North Carolina Barbecue (which is the BEST barbecue) that Texas crap tastes like nothing more than ketchup and Tabasco.

On the plus side: Ann Richards and, of course, Molly Ivins.  But they are both gone now.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 28, 2010 at 1:58 am Link to this comment

ITW mentioned; “Plus, of course, secession is the ultimate form of treason.”

Not sure about that ITW, especially in the case of Texas!

Just not havening to hear all the 30 gallon hat bragging about Texas having the biggest this and the biggest that would be worth dumping their arse alone. Then there is always the fricking yellow rose, like no one else has one!

Texas is doing to history what Bush has done to the USA, by saying Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a real person like god and the Texas BS story no Mexicans were helping Cavy Crocket at the Alamo !

Then there is always the “right to work thing”; and the “Texas Two Step” talk about making shit up and not finishing a sentence! “right to work at Wal Mart” and Texas Two steps means, one step forward and three steps back?

I vote, Texas should go the way of the elementary canal, just looking at the picture does it for me.

No don’t get me wrong, I don’t hate Texas, but one should not forget, both Bush and Chaney live there!

Report this

By ofersince72, April 27, 2010 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

I don’t quite understand Hedges’ point on this either,
  but speaking of China, those people really aren’t
  dumb,  when their citizens wake up to fact that their
  government is giving away all the money to America
  to buy all the crap that they are making instead of
  paying them a living wage.. The Chinese Government
  is going to be in big trouble, this will happen sooner
  probably than later…labor movements do catch up.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, April 27, 2010 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

truedigger3, April 27 at 6:51 pm #

I am baffled and surprised, that Chris Hedges, who have been around the block several times, wrote such nonsense.
The belief that any state, can just leave the union peacefully, with the blessing of the Federal Government is insane and rediculous.
Any REAL secessionist attempt, will be dealt with violently with the full force of the Federal Government. Besides, assuming that a state managed to secede, that will result in internal violence and strife, withing the state, coupled with wrenching and formidable logistical tasks as the state try to substitute the functions of the Federal functions within the state.
Most of these secessinist movements are racist and based on outmoded ideas and era.
The antebellum South is not coming back, never.
If a body is sick, you treat the sickness and not cut the body to pieces.!!!

****************************************************

For once I agree with TD3 100%—every word!  It’s that things aren’t pretty f***ed up—they are.  But do you give up and go establish a lot of little war-lord states?  That’s what will happen. The rich and powerful in the secessionist states will STAY rich and powerful, and now the idiots who followed them out of the Union will be even MORE in their thrall, just for safety.

Also these idiots don’t realize that when they are “independent nations” they are…TARGETS!  That’s right—targets, for any powerful nation that wants to go after them.  They will be like Uzbekistan, which had NO CHOICE but to be a staging nation for our invasion of Afghanistan.  Whether the invasion was right or wrong, Uzbekistan had no choice.

And neither will Vermont.  The world is a very dangerous place and we, as STILL the most powerful nation in it, forget that.

Plus, of course, secession is the ultimate form of treason.

Report this

By truedigger3, April 27, 2010 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Paul_GA wrote:
“If they have any smarts, they’ll wait until this country is collapsing from imperial overstretch and the feds are so overwhelmed by events at home and abroad, they couldn’t stop a secession movement with the best will in the world, even if they *could* clone Abe Lincoln.”
_____________________________________________________

Paul,

You are building castles, but only in your imagination.
What you are you describing will never happen, well into the foreseeable future. You have no idea how immense are the military and economic powers of the USA.
What is happening right now is nothing but the shift of more wealth to the supper rich and of course the common people are hurting and losing in that process, but most of them are brain-washed and think it is their own fault.!!
And please don’t tell me about China. China will be in deep trouble without the US market and its manufacturing operations in China. China has no choice but to support the dollar otherwise it will be shooting itself in the groin with many of its reserve savings are invested in US Treasury Bonds which are nominated in dollars.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook