How can a patriotic American be ready to secede from the United States?

How can a patriotic American be ready to secede from the United States?

I love my country. I voted for President Obama.

Those two sentences are not mutually exclusive.

In talking with supporters of both candidates over the last week, it seems like many who supported Mitt Romney went off the deep end after last week’s defeat. Thousands of Americans have signed petitions to secede from the nation.

One person posted on Facebook: "Secession or revolution... sign me up... my gun is loaded and I speak Texan."

I’m sorry, but I just find that sort of language contemptible. Maybe I am greatly offended by this language because it comes from Republicans, who started a "We’re More Patriotic Than You" war with Democrats years ago and then when an election doesn’t go their way, they want to secede from the nation.

And that’s why I’m offended. Don’t tell me you love this country more than I do and then say you’re going to leave when a candidate loses an election.

I had another conversation with an attorney who wants to close up his small firm because President Obama was reelected. "The country is going to fail," he whined to me.

"This country is too strong to be defeated because one man was re-elected president. The only way this country will fail is because half of the electorate is ready to quit on it when their guy doesn’t win," I angrily replied.

For these people, it’s easy to chant "USA!" when Michael Phelps is winning in a swimming pool– but too difficult to do so if Barack Obama wins an election. I just don’t get that. How good of an American are you if you are only willing to be one when its easy? Aren’t we supposed to be the underdog? Aren’t we the scrappy fighters that just outworks everyone else and wins? If so, then GET TO WORK!!!

So if you are one of those idiots that want to secede from the country because a man lost the election last week, I pity you. I pity that one lousy election was enough for you to give up on America. I pity the fact that this great nation doesn’t mean terribly much to you. Think about it, there was far more on the line in 1776 when our Founders laid their lives on that line by signing the Declaration of Independence– treason!!– to form our union.

Listen to our national anthem and think about how our nation struggled for its very survival at the battle of Baltimore in 1814. Our nation had more riding on one man in 1861 when President Lincoln steered the country through the Civil War. And the elections of 1936 and 1940 had a whole lot more riding on it considering the nation was still in the Great Depression at a time when the world was facing the menace that was Nazi Germany.

I’m sorry, but our grandfathers and fathers, brothers, sisters and friends did not fight and spill blood in foreign lands so we can flippantly decide to renounce our country because Barack Obama was re-elected President. It shouldn’t work that way. It can’t work that way.

So if your signature is on one of those petitions, or if you write on your Facebook wall that you are ready to secede, I pity you. I pity that you have ZERO appreciation for what our forefathers have done to make this country the best country on earth. I pity that you would rather leave it than continue the fight to make it better. All because Mitt Romney lost an election, you’re ready to bolt.

Ultimately, I pity that three percent of your income (if you earn over $250,000 annually) is enough reason for you to renounce the United States.


Leave a comment
  • Well said, if Obama lost I wouldn't turn into James Garvey but yes I've heard of plenty of upset people that think without Romney, we are going to hell in a handbasket. Please, as you said so eloquently, there's 237 years of history that show we've been through worse.

  • In reply to Charles W. Johnson:

    And now it is July 15th 2014 , look at the state the USA is in under OBAMA ! that is the reason , WE SAID THE US IS GOING TO HELL IN A HANDBASKET ,your president set out to destroy the USA and he is doing exactly that as we sit around and watch. WE HAVE NEVER BEEN THROUGH WORSE !

  • Define "patriotism".

    Maybe in the interest of forming the more perfect union now desired by the majority of those who voted for Obama, you should allow those who want to secede from the Union? Think of the conflict that can be resolved by a red state leaving? No muss no fuss for those in blue or purple states; no wild eyed conservatives to block the utopian agenda? What would be so bad?

    Remember, the states came together to form the union, and not the other way around, and should one want to go off on a path thought of to be crazy by the now majority, why not let it?

    Of course, this all academic, akin which ever Baldwin brother of the moment wanting to leave the country when GWB was elected.

    Better to have a peaceful expression of dissatisfaction, which will go nowhere, than people writing books about how to kill a presidents, as was done with George W. Bush.

    Those who are really unhappy will leave the country. It has happened before; it will happen again. The only thing to stop that is a closed system like the old Soviet Union and Cuba.

    I think you are entering the territory that liberals and progressives warn conservatives about: questioning a persons patriotism.

    Respectfully, who are you to decide?

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Patriotism = Not quitting your country when someone you don't like is elected president.

    If the red states leave it probably would solve most of America's economic issues since they are the ones who take far more than they give. Not that I've advocating that at all, blue states are happy to share the wealth with those in need.

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    Jimmy - agree. I recall Alec Baldwin on Letterman saying he would move to France if Bush were re-elected. I also recall him staying and doing quite well for himself.

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    Jimmy, unless I missed it, I don't see millions pouring over the border to Canada or Mexico or setting sail to some foreign land, so we can safely assume that most of the population is "patriotic". Maybe they do not fit the bloggers definition of patriotism, or yours, but they clearly love the land of their birth. The ones who create petitions, why not let them go to form Redlandia or something?

    As I mentioned, this is common after elections, especially ones as polarizing as this.

    Tell me, did you take umbrage with those -- mainly celebs and hysterical progressives-- who wanted to leave the country with the election of GWB? C'mon, did you really?

    Talk of "patriotism" from those who constantly reminded others not to question what patriotism in relation to themselves is a tad ironic and disingenuous. I thought "My country, right or wrong ," died with Nixon and his imperial presidency. Maybe not.

    Regarding the blue state sharing of wealth: do you mean Illinois, which per capita, is the biggest debtor state in the union? Maybe California will step up?

    Just as an aside, not that it matters anymore in a post-Constitutional US, but under the current Federalist system, the Federal government was not set up to be the distributer of wealth.

    My question to you is, why not scrap the Constitution and construct a more timely document? That would be better than trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. It would be a more honest approach, anyway. And it would eliminate a lot of the anger, because there are those who still hold it a sacred document and those who see it as "living" document, subject to change with the whim of the moment. It would help to know what system of government one actually lives under, no?

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    Patriotism = Whether your a Christian an Athiest a Muslim a socialist ,Whether your black or white YOU DEMAND YOUR F***ING RIGHTS !

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    In my eight months away from ChicagoNow, I've missed Richard Davis.

  • In reply to gwill:

    Thanks gwill. Are you being sarcastic? I take the slings and arrows from just about everybody -- and I do mean everybody, even from editorial-- so I'm a little dazed from what MIGHT be an apparent positive nod.

    Read about your "affair". It happens even to CIA directors who run sub 6 minute miles, so don't feel bad. This may qualify you for spy, as a matter of fact.

  • You don't get why people want to leave the US, it's not about hurting the country, it's about protecting the values that it has. Under the current POTUS, freedom and rights of the citizens are being taken away, entitlements are more common than jobs, and the 53% are sick of paying for the other 47%. If states leave the US, do you think they will start to have kings and queens and move to a monarchy just because they left the US? No, of course not, the people who want to leave is because they cherish freedom and what the US had to offer, but as we see that being taken away, people are acting before it is too late.

  • In reply to VeryConcerned:

    What freedoms -- AND BE SPECIFIC -- have been taken away?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    The freedom to NOT have health insurance if I choose

  • In reply to Laurel Schiller:

    You absolutely still have that freedom. But you'll then pay a penalty/tax or whatever you want to call it. The Republican-dominated Supreme Court ruled this constitutional.

    You also still have the freedom to not use emergency rooms when you get sick and stick the rest of society with the bill.

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    You're kidding, right? You say we have the freedom, but if we make the wrong choice, we pay penalty/tax for making that choice?

    Does that sound even the tiniest bit Orwellian to you? "Right thinking will be rewarded. Wrong thinking will be punished."

    If you don't want ERs to provide free health care to the indigent, repeal that part of the Hill-Burton Act. Don't create another new mega-bureaucracy.

  • In reply to MisterMan:

    2+2=5, silly.

  • In reply to Laurel Schiller:

    Is that what this is about? Do you have health insurance? Because if you do, this is a moot point.

    What about the freedom not to have car insurance? Are you going to secede from every state in the union because they force you to have car insurance?

  • In reply to Laurel Schiller:

    Are you the blonde in your avatar? I love me some republican women!

  • In reply to Laurel Schiller:

    Thank you, Laurel Schiller, for posting the dumbest response to anything on the internet that i have ever read.

    I didn't have health insurance -- none of the 10+ jobs i ever worked while attending college (and grad school) ever offered it. Then i got testicular cancer (without any trace of family history .. In fact, i never even caught a common cold).

    Trust me. You want some damn health insurance. What I can't pay just made your costs go up and my bills will follow me for a lifetime.

  • In reply to Dan Bradley:

    And thanks, Brian, for pointing-out the car insurance thing. I've had that same thought and smiled. :-)

    I dig this post. So many Tea Partiers and the like attempt to channel the Founding Fathers while understanding nothing they stood for.

  • In reply to VeryConcerned:

    Stop regurgitating sound bites and look into the subject. That 47% includes seniors who are beyond their working years, it includes kids too young to be working. When you subtract those two groups, the too old and too young, from the 47% you strip out more than two-thirds. A lot of the rest are people who earn so little, their deductions zero out their taxable income. Doesn't negate them from paying FICA taxes. Doesn't negate them from paying property taxes, sales taxes, fuel taxes, utility taxes etc. Inform yourself before you just bleet some number you heard.

  • The Country is not too strong to be defeated by one man. We were drug through the hell of a depression thanks solely to the consistent mistakes of 12 years of FDR. Just read what his FED chairman who stepped down in disgrace said about their great plans and its constant failure and dramatic increase in debt. Sound familiar? Now we are dangerously close to the same path and this time we starring down a loaded gun in the FED that is continuing to dump loads of fiat currency in to the system. They have been printing like mad over the past 5 years with their QE1, QE2 and current QE Infinite (as it has no set ending). With every day Fiscal Collapse becomes a great threat.

    What made America great was that the power was the people. Not the Government. Big government only stifles the engine and always has this is why our Founders tried to put so many restraints on its expansion. Ben Franklin said that we gave you a Republic if you can keep it. Well over the past 100 years I can say we have probably officially lost it to the Progressives as they are the only choice election after election. There is no big difference between Mitt and Obama or McCain and Obama. What would the major change have been all like nationalized healthcare which would put them diametrically opposed to the views of our founders that a small lean Government is best. There is one party and that is why nothing changes. Everyone gets swept up in the social views/differences and no one looks at the real issues.

    I am sure those in Rome said they could never be taken down also but all great nations have failed and what is sad is that America was the engine whose before unknown freedoms changed the entire world. America was the great experiment and was a runaway success but as human nature is to seek comfort and safety we have allowed rulers to gain consistently more control over our lives. Do we need to spend more on a military than the rest of the world combined? No, that is stupid. Do we need to send money to other countries when we have to borrow to do so? No that is also dumb. Do we need to have a tax code so complex that even the head of the treasury can't figure it out? No that too is stupid. Russia was once a super power and disappeared fast. Germany same. All great societies fail as their freedoms are taken away. We are no different and have no one to blame but ourselves for not waking up sooner.

    People need to wake up and learn what does and doesn't cause a country to prosper long term. What we are doing 100% does not and feel confident that while a better option Mitt would have not changed much of anything. We are a nation largely of economically illiterate people. Probably because our government teachers shove failures like John Maynard Keynes down our throats even though he was heavily discredited and proved incorrect by Mises.

    Obama is not change he is mearly more of the same. Want change? Vote third party.

  • In reply to Chad:

    There was a lot of freedom lacking in the America of our founding fathers. You weren't free if you were human property. You weren't free if you were a woman. You were a little more free if you were a non-property owning man. Govt is not the enemy of freedom, it has a role in ensuring our freedoms endure. That we don't return to an era of Pullman villages where the employer dictated the length of the work day/week, where workers were required to live in company homes and shop in company stores. For no person is free if they are a forced into enslavement to an employer just to keep from being utterly destitute. No one is free if businesses are not required to be responsible for their own waste and not poison the air and water we need. Some freedoms depend on our common voice via our govt to ensure, protect and expand. It isn't a one way street in either direction on the road of freedom.

  • In reply to Chad:

    I don't disagree with you on Obama is not change. And I agree that Mitt would not have changed much of anything. I wish we had a viable third party, but unfortunately voting for a third party turns into voting for GOP or Dems (IMHO). Think about Bush v. Gore and Nader's influence in 2000 in FLA. Without Nader, Gore wins FLA, which swings the election. Another example: 1992 and Perot. Would Clinton have won that election if not for Ross Perot? Maybe, but it would have been much closer.

    I guess my point is the third party doesn't end up winning the election, but swings it against the party it peels votes from.

    Thanks for reading and commenting Chad. I very much appreciate your point of view, even if we don't agree. (actually, especially when we don't agree).

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Chad:

    Actually, the New Deal was working until FDR was convinced, in 1937, that the deficit had grown too large and put forth austerity measures that stalled growth and sent the economy into recession. Finally, WWII pulled the country out of the downturn. And what was WWII but the New Deal on steroids? Federal spending at levels that would never have passed muster with Congress prior to Pearl Harbor became a reality. Whether you're paying people to build dams or battleships, it doesn't really matter. The point is putting money for labor in the pockets of people who will spend it, not just the upper .01%.

    Corn makes good points about the freedom that was lacking for so many in the checkered history of our country. I would also point out that England was once a superpower that simply spread itself too thin and became unsustainable. It wasn't a lack of freedom at home that led to its collapse.

    I do agree with many of your other points. The GOP and Dems are different sides of the same coin.

    As for secession. I'm not sure the old Confederacy seceding would be such a bad thing. Since before its ill-fated experiment to see if an agrarian territory could defeat an industrial giant in a war, the south has been economically dependent on the north.

    Even now, the northern states get back less than they send to DC while the southern states and the majority of red states get back more. Ironically, the majority of these states getting back more than they give are home to some of the most vitriolic Americans decrying the welfare state. Most of the red states are, in fact, welfare states themselves.

  • Doubting Thomas, thank you. I cannot believe this secession business. I just want to point out that, for fear of Obama destroying the United States, these people will *literally* destroy the United States. It's a pretty big trade-off for one more term of four years. The logic is incoherent. And with all due respect, Richard Davis, there is no way tearing states out of the fabric of the United States can possibly be construed as "patriotic." It is anti-patriotism; it expresses contempt and hatred for the union of states, not love.

  • In reply to Julie:

    Julie, thank yoiu for coming back and reading. And for taking the time to comment.

  • "Think about it, there was far more on the line in 1776 when our Founders laid their lives on that line by signing the Declaration of Independence– treason!!– to form our union"

    I wasn't around 236 years ago and only can go on what the history books, written by the winners, say. If I recall, many if not all of the founding fathers would have been 1% by today's standards. Many of the things they did would be considered acts of terrorism -- such as throwing tea into the Boston harbor.

    They had the advantage of being physically removed from Mother England and technology wasn't advanced enough to make that distance negligable like today. Secession wouldn't work as easily today because of the interdependence between States and the Federal Government.

    I agree that both sides have whiners who threatened to run to Canada when it was GWB and "go Galt" now that it is BHO. Maybe if we could build some colonies on Mars and let each side pick one and do what they want and see how it turns out in 100 years.

  • Saying "I want to move to Canada" is NOT on par with filing petitions with the federal government to remove one's state from the Union, and I wish people would stop speaking as if it is. Secession petitions are not "whining." They are unthinkable acts which used ot be called "treason" and "sedition." They are acts for which, already, tens of thousands of soldiers gave their lives 150 years ago. (Anybody remember the Civil War?) Lincoln was actually a martyr to the idea of the union of states. This secession insanity is not whining, it is illogical, unpatriotic, anti-American, ahistorical, willfully ignorant, delusionally self-righteous action. As a final note, and just so commenters know, I am a Republican.

  • In reply to Julie:

    Hear, hear! Leaving the country -- or, more realistically, "threatening" to -- is about one person being unhappy with how things are going, and taking the consequences for him/her self. Seeking secession is profoundly presumptuous: because I'm unhappy with how things are going, an entire state should change. Even if, by some insanely weird set of circumstances, a majority of the people in a state want to secede -- NOT what's going on now, by a long shot! -- that leaves plenty of people in the state who didn't want the Hobson's choice of giving up their US citizenship or moving from their home and job to another state. But the secessionist whiners -- someone can be a whiner and a traitor -- don't care.

  • Why would I sign a petition to secede from the United States? Because I'm afraid. I'm very afraid. I just watched MONTHS of campaign ads which made me afraid - even terrified me - that if this candidate, or if that candidate, won the election, terrible things would result.

    Fear is a great motivator, but only for short time. To maintain control through fear, you have to keep raising the threat level. For me, the level has reached the point where I've decided we MUST take some action, and take it now.

    I'm signing the petitions. Why? Because I love my country, but I hate my government.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to MisterMan:

    Hate your Government, MisterMan? I'm sorry for you. But now your choice is not to sign treasonous petitions-- get in the game. Become and elected official. Change things the way you wish to see them changed; and be part of the g-d- solution.
    If you really believed those campaign ads you heard in the last year, I'm again concerned about your level of discernment and discretion. That's called *propoganda* sir, and for a reason.
    Start reading, and stop whining.

  • An independent candidate - for almost any office - doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of defeating either of the two parties. If there's one thing both parties agree on, it's that they do NOT want a third party to share power, much less some independent. By the time someone gets to be an elected official at the federal level, they are beholding to so many special interests that it would be political suicide to turn your back on them.

    As for my fear - that was sarcasm. Yet fear is what the two parties seem to use as their primary campaign strategies, and one result of creating that fear in the electorate is a sorely divided country when the election is over.

    Yes, your pity notwithstanding, I have come to hate the massive, overbearing, bloated bureaucracy that has become our government. We now have more people working in government than we have working in manufacturing and agriculture combined. The trend under Obama has been to increase the size of government, and to increase the rate by which it grows.

  • fb_avatar

    Personally the best way to deal with this problem it is to have all these unhappy Republican hold their breath until they turn Blue! PROBLEM SOLVED!

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Kenneth Lambert:

    Lol Kenneth I think you have a solution there... (P.S. I'm a Republican, but a rational centrist one who doesn't need to hold her breath for her mind to open....)

  • Let them go! On the way out they can pay back the fed for all the roads, the utility grids, national highway systems. Let them cover their own medicare, social security, teachers, police, firemen, let them build their own postal system, let them return all the weapons and defense the US government paid for. Let them form their own army and defense of their territory, let them beg for help when they get invaded by Mexico. Build your own utility grinds, telecommunications, and internet. When they see what it all will cost, they will sit down and shut up like any group of bullies when confronted with reality. Hell yes it is unpatriotic. Bigotry and racism are not the founding principals of this nation. So if they fear its their own prejudices that cause the fear. the state of Texas sucks far more out of the National treasury than it contributes, the rest of us would be better off without them and their whining. Besides, the loss of those seats in the House means a tiny majority for the Greed & Oppression Party. LET THEM GO!

  • In reply to MikeinChgo:

    As long as we're trying to settle up, the seceding states should be able to send back all those people living on government entitlement programs. It only seems fair, since you're arguing that you can't have something you didn't work for or pay for. Right?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to MikeinChgo:

    Funny sounding deadbeats. Are we talking about Texas or Quebec?

  • fb_avatar

    He honestly doesn't seem to get it. No one is asking to secede because an election was lost. But the US has been going down a very bad path for quite a while now, and Obama has accelerated this process on many fronts. Firing him wouldn't have fixed things. Not by a long shot. Not with a big government and big military guy like Mitt Romney in office. But it would have slowed the process. It was something that a lot of people hung a lot of hope on. When it failed, a lot of patriotic Americans, who are loyal not just to any polity calling itself "The United States", but to the principles upon which this nation was formed, realized that the chances of stopping the downward path we're on are simply too low. And they want to secede from what still bears the name of "United States" *in order* to preserve the principles of the United States, even without the name.

  • In reply to Lisa Liel:

    Thanks Lisa for reading and commenting. My question to your comment is "what specific principles?"

    In terms of the govt spending more money than it takes in, you and I agree, so you don't need to use that argument with me. With respect to that, a re-election of Obama versus the election of Romney doesn't really change much in terms of our govt spending more money that it takes in. We now have a structural deficit where I think we have to borrow 60 cents for every dollar the government spends. Obviously we need a wholesale cut in spending-- which wasn't going to happen once Romney was elected; we also need more revenue, which also wasn't going to happen with Romney in office (unless the economy makes a huge turnaround, creating more jobs which in turn would create more revenue-- but gven this is a global economy, Europe plays a bigger role in what happens here than the president's policies do).

    But I digress-- because I am curious about what principles you are referring to. Because I still believe that we all have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Regardless of what Rush and Hannity say (and remember, they get paid more to make you afraid), that hasn't changed. If you work hard and make good decisions, then you will do well in this country. I don't see how Barack Obama's re-election changes that either.

  • So, Lisa Liel, if Romney had won, there wouldn't be the mad rush to create 50 new nations just yet? Or would there have been? When is "the United States" pure enough to be loyal to?

  • "I love my country. I voted for President Obama."

    You could also say: "I love President Obama. I voted for my country"

    Then again, you could also say: "I love attractive MILFs, I voted for spanx."

    It's all about your point of view.

  • In reply to gwill:

    You cheated on me GWill; but it's good to have you back!

  • fb_avatar

    Truly, I haven't seen the right-wing this P.O.'d since they were told they could no longer force 12-year-olds to work 14-hour days in the coal mines.

  • In reply to Geno57:

    How about when women won the right to vote?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Bumsteer:

    That event, of course, is right up there, too.

  • In reply to Geno57:

    Yeah republicans were livid or at least the vote should reflect that??
    19th amendment "women's right to vote"
    Republicans for: 36 vs Democrats for: 20
    Republicans against:8
    Democrats against: 17
    Obama has hijacked and diluted the definition of “Women’s Rights” i.e. formerly noble causes such as equal pay, sex discrimination, voting rights have now been replaced by a woman’s right to use the government to force churches to buy her contraception and pay to abort her child.

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Timothy:

    I didn't say "Republicans". I said "the right wing". Today's Repugnican Party is a far cry from that of Lincoln. Today, they'd be all for slavery.

    Want proof? Look at the more recent past. In my lifetime, it was mostly the "red states" where the people in charge didn't want blacks in the same restaurants, or toward the front of the bus, or in the same schools as members of the "better" white race. It was the Repugnicans who wanted to keep the old anti-miscegenation laws in place. And they were dead-set against any form of equality during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.

  • Being a moderate Rep. who voted for Obama twice, I was not expecting huge changes if Romney won. My main fear with him was too much tough talk against Russia and China that I thought could not turn out well.

    I consider the President to be closer to a moderate Republican position and very close to the Romney '08 version. He has people on the left who think he's not liberal at all and people on the right who think he's a communist/ marxist or something else they don't understand or aren't willing to put in writing. To me he must be doing something right if both extremes don't like him and the middle elects him.

    These people that speak out would never speak the same way about a white democrat, I am absolutely convinced regardless of the denials. We'll see the evidence the next time around in 2016. Maybe the democrats will choose a woman and then we'll have some fireworks. Like those nice young Republican boys who held up the signs saying "Iron my shirt" at the Hillary rallies. Charming bunch.

  • In reply to Bumsteer:

    Thanks Bumsteer for your continued readership and comments. They are very much appreciated.

  • fb_avatar

    Canadians have been dealing with this problem for years. We have a region full of funny sounding people that is even bigger than Texas. They have been threatening to secede for fifty years, We finally said: "Go right ahead. Is there anything we can do to help". The Quebec separatists just shut right up at that point.

  • fb_avatar

    The status quo is unacceptable and change must come at any price! We the people are tired of being ignored and overlooked.This time you will hear our voice!

  • In reply to Stacy Sutherland:

    Stacy: Who are "We The People"? So what happens when the other half of the electorate's candidate loses an election like in 2000 or 2004? That's fine for you? What about "We The (majority of) People" who voted for Al Gore in 2000? Is your attitude: they got it wrong anyway so it doesn't count. I just don't get it. It is not right and it is completely disrespectful of the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country day in and day out.

    So, you're welcome to give up on America. It's still a free country. But when you do, don't blame your loss on Obama, blame yourself for quitting.

    I'm still working hard. You should too. And if everyone does, our nation does better. It's that easy.

  • In reply to Brian C. Thomas:

    Have you read the First Amendment, Brian? It has a couple of interesting clauses. One of them ensures your right to publish things like this blog.

    Another clause gives all of us the right to 'petition the government for a redress of grievances' which is what I see with the secessionists. No one has taken up arms and fired on Ft. Sumter, we've simply exercised the right our Constitution's Bill of Rights says we have. How could that be considered 'unpatriotic'?

  • fb_avatar
    In reply to Stacy Sutherland:

    "We the People" *were* heard. Loud and clear. Nine days ago. Get over it. We're tired of hearing your hatefully shrill, flatulent voices.

  • fb_avatar

    does the author think the founding fathers would even recognize their republic now? a private bank issues our paper currency charges us interest on it and we are directly taxed to pay that usury. we have a standing army invading other sovreign nations to protect corporate interests, not the interests of the people. we are just as fascist as nazi germany, except in our case the corporations control the government. Oh-and we do not have ovens-yet. But we do have Guantanamo, and we torture people without habeas corpus. Tried flying lately? Show your papers, and go through a naked body scanner. Smile for the cameras, they are everywhere. But the US is the greatest country in the world, you betcha.

  • There were about 18 charges levied against King George III in the declaration of independence. Of those, President Obama has clearly violated about 13. He has also created new and more inventive ways to erode the democratic republic for which our citizens have fought. For most conservatives, this election was the last hope of salvaging the foundation of our country. The smug responses to the states desire to secede is not dissimilar from the dismissive response from the British Crown in 1776 of the Court of King George III. So, to imply that this movement is a temporary tantrum by the losing side is uninformed at best.

  • In reply to Timothy:

    But Timothy, big difference. England was a monarchy with an unelected king. England was an empire whose subjects had no representation in their government. The United States is a representative deocracy with a president who changes every four years by peaceful election and transfer of power. Why are you people speaking and acting as if Obama is emperor for perpetuity and has destroyed the fabric of your being? He is a moment in time, a moment preferable to Romney if you ask me; he will be gone in the blink of an eye. If you scan the broad course of American history, you might note that our preference in presidents tends to swing back and forth. To fail to see this would be uninformed at best.

    As Elaine said above, if you're unhappy, get in the game.

  • oops, that's "The United States is a representative democracy..."

  • First, I want to again thank everyone for reading and commenting.

    In rereading some of my own comments-- I see that I was more heated than I normally am. The idea of this blog has always been to post an idea or topic and let people discuss and freely, openly and respectfully disagree. And for the most part-- I think we've accomplished that here. I know just because I write something doesn't make it correct. I somewhat forgot that in some of my responses from yesterday.

    That said, it's because I am passionate about this country. And I can't wrap my head around people wiping their hands of it because Obama received more votes than Romney last week. And to be quite candid, it makes me angry.

    It's like flag burning to me. You certainly have the right to take an American flag and burn it. But that certainly doesn't make it right.

    So please feel free to comment and tell me I'm wrong. I'll make a better effort to taking deep breaths and counting to ten prior to commenting in the future.

    Again, thank you all for reading and commenting.

  • Brian, you're still not getting it. It isn't just infantile whining about Obama being elected. This last election is probably better viewed as a tipping point for some strong political backlash.

    A lot of people who have worked hard to get what they have are seeing an erosion - almost a complete reversal - of that fundamental idea, which is that hard work can lead to rewards. Those people see the fruits of their hard work being taxed away to fund entitlement programs that are little more than creeping socialism.

    Re-electing Obama was just a spark tossed into a volatile situation. The movie 'Network' was intended as satire, but the notion that, "I'm mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take this any more" pretty well describes the sentiment of the secessionists.

    So please don't try to dismiss this visceral reaction as a bunch of people angry simply because of the election result.

  • In reply to MisterMan:

    MisterMan: Thanks for the comment... this is a debate we can have-- and a good one, because I think if you and I were having a beer talking about it, we would find we agree about more than we disagree about.

    I think your second paragraph is an entire new post-- which hopefully, I'll be able to get to relatively soon. Briefly, I somewhat agree with you... but we would need to sit down and look at all entitlements. If we were just to look at "welfare" and if you cut that entirely, my bet is that we would still have to borrow 60 cents for every dollar we spend. Medicare and SS need to also be reformed. I'm not yet 40 and would certainly love it if I didn't have to pay social security tax. For me, I'd have better luck playing the lotto; it's not going to be there in 25 years and if it is... I'll have to wait until I'm 85 to touch the money I put in.

    But, as I do so well, I digress and gave you a preview of the next post. My point is this: we can't just cut bait. I'm listening to you and I respect the way you feel, I just think those feelings would be better served working within the system-- or even fixing the system. If people were allowed to secede whenever they felt America wasn't working, America wouldn't be here today. If people can sacrifice their lives for our freedoms, then we can sacrifice to have the debate or fix the problem.

    I feel like we should just look back at our Greatest Generation, learn from their example, and get to work.

    Thanks for your comment MM.

  • fb_avatar

    yeah listen to the our national anthem our commander and chief won't even hold his hand over his heart so what country is he loyal to?

  • In reply to Jack Chipley:

    I hold my hand over my heart. That's why even if Romney had won, I would never consider signing a petition to secede.

  • In reply to Brian C. Thomas:

    Most normal people would not consider leaving, but I do think it is worthwhile to consider a Constitutional Convention to scrap or update it, as an objective consideration by anyone on either side of this question of relationship of government to the people, will have to see that it is only pretzel logic and tradition that keeps it as the reference point for the supreme law of the land.

    Once freed from its constraints, then the body politic could better understand what type of country in which they live. I don't think, Brian, you can be too hard on those who take their Federalism seriously, and who see Obama as the exact opposite in political thought.

    I always say let the mis-contents go. There is room for Redlandia somewhere out there, and Bluesville for those who (somehow) think Obama too conservative.

  • fb_avatar

    We did not spill blood so that we could live in under an oppressive and statist government.

  • Gun control is the least of Obama's issues as is evidenced by sustained gun violence in Chicago...a city of extreme gun restrictions.

    Far more important is transparency, adherence to the US Constitution, and an end to his socialistic agenda.

    I see America in the process of its fall as prophesied in Revelations 18. Most will immediately tune me out to their own demise. I left the Assemblies of God after 18 years of ministry. I will not lend my name to any organization that promotes lies and violates their own Constitution. As for America, I no longer vote. To do so would lend credence to a system no longer 'Of the People, By the People, and 'For the People'.

    I am neither Democratic nor Republican. I see both parties supporting the overthrow of America as envisioned by Philip Freneau in 1792..."Rules to Change A Limited Republic into an Unlimited Hereditary Monarchy."

    Those of you who are truly 'Doubting Thomases' will do your due diligence to arrive on solid ground. Unfortunately most of you have blinded your eyes, stopped up your ears, and only spew the propaganda you have chosen to believe.

    America's intervention in world affairs, economies, and politics is just plain wrong. Ask Henry Kissinger why he never visits third world countries where he executed genocide against their populations!

    Currently targeted by the Powers That Be who handle Obama is SIX BILLION HUMANS who are deemed excess burdens on world ecology. Eliminate them and global warming/cooling is solved. Eliminate them and lack of resources and food is gone. Eliminate them and private possession of guns will yield global domination by the elite few, descendants from the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

    My ideology is far from doom and gloom. I perceive final redemption and restoration for all Creation on the horizon. Exclaim that I am deluded...are you certain I am wrong? Freneau also spoke of the PTB intentionally deceiving, dividing, and ultimately controlling the electorate.

  • Ironic that Chicago was the hub for the Council on Foreign Relations that determined in 1921 that the dissolution of the United States of America was the only way to secure world peace. Check 2nd volume of Foreign Affairs.

Leave a comment