Start Taking Secession Seriously
Posted by freedomforall 2 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
Excerpt:
"The Left's Unionists Want to Run Your Life
A second reason to take secession seriously is the fact that the Left doesn't seem to be learning anything from the rise of separatism. Just as many Americans appear to be embracing a posture in opposition to rule from the center, the Left is doubling down on the idea that more local autonomy is not to be tolerated.
A clear example of this is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act introduced in the US Senate. The legislation, if passed, would give Washington vast new powers in regulating and controlling how states conduct their own elections. Originally, of course, state governments had almost total control over how elections were governed and conducted within each state. This makes sense in a country that began as a collection of sovereign republics. Just as EU member states conduct their elections in a way that's locally controlled, the same was once true for the US. Over time—as in most policy areas—the federal government asserted more control. But with the Voting Rights Advancement Act, local control over elections would be virtually abolished, with most any changes subject to a federal imprimatur.
Naturally, opposition to surrendering state elections to federal control is denounced as motivated by racism and other nefarious goals. And this is reflective of the Left's opposition to secession and decentralization in general. The idea is "we can't let those people run their own affairs, because they're sure to use local prerogatives for evil."
For example, when condemning secession in New York magazine, Democratic strategist Ed Kilgore made it clear he has no intention of letting people do much of anything without federal "oversight." He writes:
So might we drift apart more or less peacefully this time around? Possibly, but count me out when it comes to agreeing to a National Divorce…. [H]ow could I happily accept the accelerated subjugation of women and people of color in a new, adjacent Red America, any more than abolitionists could accept the continuation and expansion of the slavery they hated? Would it really be safe to live near a carbon-mad country in which the denial of climate change was an article of faith? And could I ever trust that a "neighbor" whose leadership and citizens believed their policies reflected the unchanging ancient will of the Almighty would leave our fences intact?
Kilgore can barely contain his contempt. He might as well be saying, "If those red state troglodytes are allowed freedom, they'll surely embrace a racist and misogynistic dystopia that fills the air with poisonous fumes. These are religious zealots, after all!"
Anyone who doesn't want to live out his or her life as subject to the whims of men like Kilgore should take his few moments of candor as an ominous warning. These people will never "happily accept" self-governance outside Washington's purview, because they quite literally equate it with slavery and the hatred of women.
In other words, the more the Left condemns secession in detail—as they must now do because dismissive scoffing no longer works—they only provide additional reasons for why secession is likely the only real solution to the national divide."
"The Left's Unionists Want to Run Your Life
A second reason to take secession seriously is the fact that the Left doesn't seem to be learning anything from the rise of separatism. Just as many Americans appear to be embracing a posture in opposition to rule from the center, the Left is doubling down on the idea that more local autonomy is not to be tolerated.
A clear example of this is the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act introduced in the US Senate. The legislation, if passed, would give Washington vast new powers in regulating and controlling how states conduct their own elections. Originally, of course, state governments had almost total control over how elections were governed and conducted within each state. This makes sense in a country that began as a collection of sovereign republics. Just as EU member states conduct their elections in a way that's locally controlled, the same was once true for the US. Over time—as in most policy areas—the federal government asserted more control. But with the Voting Rights Advancement Act, local control over elections would be virtually abolished, with most any changes subject to a federal imprimatur.
Naturally, opposition to surrendering state elections to federal control is denounced as motivated by racism and other nefarious goals. And this is reflective of the Left's opposition to secession and decentralization in general. The idea is "we can't let those people run their own affairs, because they're sure to use local prerogatives for evil."
For example, when condemning secession in New York magazine, Democratic strategist Ed Kilgore made it clear he has no intention of letting people do much of anything without federal "oversight." He writes:
So might we drift apart more or less peacefully this time around? Possibly, but count me out when it comes to agreeing to a National Divorce…. [H]ow could I happily accept the accelerated subjugation of women and people of color in a new, adjacent Red America, any more than abolitionists could accept the continuation and expansion of the slavery they hated? Would it really be safe to live near a carbon-mad country in which the denial of climate change was an article of faith? And could I ever trust that a "neighbor" whose leadership and citizens believed their policies reflected the unchanging ancient will of the Almighty would leave our fences intact?
Kilgore can barely contain his contempt. He might as well be saying, "If those red state troglodytes are allowed freedom, they'll surely embrace a racist and misogynistic dystopia that fills the air with poisonous fumes. These are religious zealots, after all!"
Anyone who doesn't want to live out his or her life as subject to the whims of men like Kilgore should take his few moments of candor as an ominous warning. These people will never "happily accept" self-governance outside Washington's purview, because they quite literally equate it with slavery and the hatred of women.
In other words, the more the Left condemns secession in detail—as they must now do because dismissive scoffing no longer works—they only provide additional reasons for why secession is likely the only real solution to the national divide."
"Anyone who doesn't want to live out his or her life as subject to the whims of men like Kilgore should take his few moments of candor as an ominous warning." And Kilgore isn't the only Neo Communist broadcasting the warning.
Then the oppressors received worship from the oppressed for addicting them to welfare and confining them to neighborhoods with low-income housing.
Now the oppressors attempt to increase their tithe by igniting renewed interest in their issue well-on its way to oblivion.
Here he acts as if they are in the role of Lincoln. Maybe he hasn't forgotten, rather seeks to twist like the charlatans they've demonstrated themselves to be for 100 years.
https://freedomwire.com/new-hampshire...
The University of New Hampshire is my Alma Mater having graduated with a BS in Geology in 1977. Although New Hampshire has had a very interesting history of conservative and libertarian politics the influx of Massholes from south of the border is rapidly changing all that. I immediately left the socialist east coast and moved to Arizona that year. But back then, UNH was a good school. An excellent College of Engineering and Technology. Now see where they are at:
https://training.unh.edu/carbon-footp...
They can't even differentiate an element from a molecule. But they are eminently successful at landing federal grants and proud of it.
Sickening. All power to the "Live Free Or Die" State.
Technically, it would have been a repeater. Any state with a decent ARES/RACES organization has auxilliary communications relays like this already. Our group did an exercise a few years back where we spread out all over the valley so we could map out who could talk to whom over UHF/VHF channels. I got to hang out downtown just across from the State Capital building. Got a couple of startled looks from the parking lot enforcers as I was wearing a bright flourescent green/vellow vest with a Homeland Security patch on the back (bigger than my head) wielding a hand-held radio. I just waved as they walked by.
A breakup of the nation will be a disaster, with a predatory China gobbling up as much of our territory as it can, buying or simply occupying territory. Wresting control from the unworthy will retain a unified strategic capability that will give the predators pause.
Neither extreme option may be necessary, looking at the latest polls that clearly point to a rejection of the left's attempt to remake the republic. However, even if things shift back toward a more responsible elected government, there still remains the duty to dig deeper and cleanse the government structure of the unworthy, unelected bureaucrats that have usurped control with their "shadow laws" of regulatory control. That will require a citizenry that demands massive revision to the way things have been, revising the government to the original constitutional intent.
So, what of an American breakup? I dare say it will likely be messy with a number of new countries emerging because geographically creating two (one red and one blue) new nations like a Union and Confederacy in the past is not likely at all. If one looks at a two color county map of the US you see an awful lot of red with a smattering of blue islands. Even more, many of the blue and red designated areas are actually purple as their populations are divided more evenly. It will be messy.
LOL. We have the BEST GOVERNOR EVER!
Just him calling it the Brandon Administration is PRICELESS.
Look at how much local politics is being usurped by non-local groups and the growing reaction to it as but one of many examples. Look at California's government and Party trying to change Texas' elections - and Georgia's, and anywhere else they don't like the outcome. Look at their attempt to centralize control over elections.
In many ways we are seeing a resurgence of the events that led to the Boston Tea Party and eventually Lexington and Concorde. The colonies had been enjoying a rather high degree of self-government. While the mantra was "No taxation w/o representation" the underlying problem was Parliament trying to exercise more and more centralized control. It was this aggregation of power that ultimately led to the Revolution rather than the taxes.
Side note: The BTP was not about new taxes, but about preferential tax elimination to support the East India Trading Company. It wasn't that they added tax to tea, it was that they left it in place for the colonist, but removed it for the British corporation.
In some ways what we see today is quite reminiscent of that. We have the aggregation of power to a central legislative body that is usurping local (state/colony) authority to an increasing degree. This is one of the basically unique aspects of the American Revolution - it was a reaction to power aggregation for populations that were enjoying local control. Most revolutions are not for those reasons, and it is rare the result is an entirely new form of government rather than a replacement of the people pulling the levers.
Now as to a potential balkanization, I don't think we'd see a consistent "the red states went their own way and the blue theirs, and then stayed that way" effect. The larger a population under a government gets, the more it pushes toward collectivism. This is in my estimation a side-effect of not being able to rule/govern disparate groups of individuals. Its like herding cats. To rule/govern large masses you need to resort to some basic and minimum amount of collectivism - and the larger the population the more collectivist. The "blue" states are where you see the largest pushes for centralization/aggregation of power - and they tend to be the most dense.
However, if you pull back the geographical scope to "closer to home", there is a lessening or even a reversal of this. In part because they can't justify their actions, or pay for them, based on "outsiders" - such as Californians thinking they are good but those damned Texans need some more laws. It rather brings chickens home to roost. It is one of the great ironies I've found. For over a hundred years the leftists have wanted to limit urbanization and densification, and have always failed. But if they succeeded, they would be powerless because almost no sparsely populated areas are "blue" - and that has held over time and culture.
For some reason, the closer you pack people the more they "care" about what their neighbor is doing. Gee, can't imagine why. ;)
Lets take the most likely possible case: Texas says "we're out" - "Texit"
Once that is accomplished, you can bet Texas would have campaign finance laws preventing entities from outside the country, such as California, from having influence. There goes a ton of "blue funding" and along with it many of the left's current causes celebre. We'd have full control over our border w/Mexico of course, but the question of what happens to the caravans still is open. After all, if they are after the United States, and Texas puts a hard limit and uses a "stay in Mexico" policy, there is good reason to expect Texas would have less to do on the border. Plus you bet the Brandon administration would suddenly plagiarize, err I mean invent a "stay in Texas" policy. ;) Indeed I suspect that'd be part of any negotiation between the U.S. government and Texas. That would push them over to Arizona, New Mexico, and California (and hasten CA's demise)
Militarily, nobody is going to try to invade Texas other than the United States. While that was a valid concern in the late 1700s, it isn't today. Mexico has their own issues to deal with and wouldn't risk the ire of the remaining United States to repeat that war. That and Texas could rather easily defend against them anyway.
The Democrats have pushed so much to the federal government in their bid for control that they don't have much for Texas politics, and this is part of why Texas is still solidly red despite the Democrats' breathless hype. If anything Texas would be more red.
But imagine California trying that without their red counties.
I like this idea.[irony]It would be a union with a federal government granted only specific, limited powers. We could call out specific rights that must be protected but also add some language saying just because we're calling out specific rights doesn't imply the federal government has powers beyond those specifically enumerated. [/irony]
I don't know how to accomplish it, but I think finding some way to follow the federalist spirit of the Constitution would easier than dissolving the country altogether.
- I think McMaken means new political entities rather than existing states when he says red/blue "states" because the current state boundaries do not divide politics well. Many states are close enough to 50/50, so the states separating would not solve the problem.
- The boundaries would have to be done well because the problems will get worse for those on the wrong side of the border.
- I don't actually think zealous Democrats and Republics actually disagree that much on substantive policy issues. If they somehow came up with a separation along clear boundaries, the policies would be surprisingly similar.
I am not sure if Kilgore is right that urban people couldn't accept "subjugation" of women and minorities, contributing to climate change, etc in a neighboring country. It's much effective to respect people's rights and protect the environment yourself than to go make someone else do it by force. I hope that those who just want to enforce their will on others would be a minority.
I would be more concerned about financial issues. So many people in Trump world are completely dependent on the federal government to stay alive. Their main ideology, as far as I can tell, is whining about the grievances, so I would expect them to move to urban areas bringing narratives of victimhood in order to keep the federal benefits keeping them alive. I would like to be wrong about that, but I see it going to a dark place, with restrictions on immigration, which would be difficult in geographically comingled states.
I really think it's more doable to make the Constitution work.
Please tell me how to FORCE a Judge to obey the constitution?
Explain how Michael Flynn was subjected to all of this unconstitutional use of power/lies against him, and yet NOBODY Pays a price, except the patriot himself?
who do you think the Constitution is supposed to work for? How do we enforce it?
Epstein? Okay, we are supposed to accept three situations:
1) Epstein found dead. NO review possible of ALL OF THE OTHER Cameras for hours before/after the event? Really.
You should be able to prove that nobody came in/left and visited him, with EVERY OTHER Camera, aside from his.
Oh, but systemic failure of multiple cameras... And NO INVESTIGATION? Why? Because they got their answer
2) Seth Rich. Police ILLEGALLY Destroyed their body cam footage, and Chief Gets BIG Job at NFL, no investigations
3) Phil Haney. Killed on the side of the road, execution style. First attempts were to claim it was suicide. No news since...
So, we have the ability to investigate Trump, wasting MILLIONS (which was really a coverup, and threatened Actual witnesses to shutup). But we can't solve these crimes.
Our INCOMPETENCE seems RATHER FOCUSED.
But you think the Constitution, EVEN IF IT IS NOT FOLLOWED or HONORED by EITHER of the 3 Branches of Govt is worth saving? And that Trump supporters are just victim oriented complainers? Nope. We ARE THE SILENT MAJORITY, and we will BE SILENT NO MORE!
Those are not Cries of Victimhood you are hearing. They are WARNINGS. We will TRY to do this lawfully, without bloodshed.
I used to think the Constitution needed some kind improvement, "teeth" to make people follow it. Now I think it can never work unless most of the population understands the broad philosophy behind it and supports it.
It has been twisted into PERMISSION for govt to do as they will.
Again, welcome to reality. There is no saving a society that cannot agree to be social!
[Sarcasm]Then why didn't they say in the Constitution that the government isn't empowered to do anything not explicitly called out?
X. "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."
Of course, elements of the federal government have been ignoring the limits of the constitution since the early 19th century.
Until 1860 there were enough rational voices of reason that the limits were almost always observed in spite of those who rationalized that the limits should be ignored for specific cases.
Today there is only one in con-gress who consistently honors the constitutional limits. The rest honor the limits only when it serves the interest of increasing their power.
They are tyrants.
That includes every single candidate for POTUS except Ron Paul and Rand Paul. (AFAIK, candidate Trump did not have such an oath until he became POTUS.)
Every other candidate for POTUS from either party who served in con-gress did not honor that oath and should have been rejected as a candidate for that reason.