Liberals are fond of saying that, in regards to racism or whatever -ism they happen to be denouncing for fun and profit, “You have to be taught to hate.”
Look at the writings on DemocraticUnderground, DailyKos, just about any liberal blog and liberals’ comments left on most conservative blogs and one thing becomes clear immediately: Liberals hate conservatives. They don’t just disagree with us, they actively nurture a hatred for us. It’s a fire they stoke every single day.
The hate goes both ways to some extent, of course, but the overwhelming tendency of liberals is to mock and insult conservatives rather than engage with us. We point out that science is limited and may be flawed, and we’re “anti-science” (despite the fact that, in my case, I spent eight years on the Hubble Space Telescope project), we’re rednecks, we’re racists, we’re homophobes, we’re ignorant, we’re fools, etc etc etc.
Look at how criticism of Ambassador Susan Rice is being treated. The Democrats actually had some white guy on Fox today to argue that Rice is being criticized over her Benghazi comments because she’s a black woman. The content of her comments was irrelevant. Rep. Jim Clyburn said pretty much the same thing on MSNBC yesterday. It’s as if her comments never happened, she never went on those five Sunday shows to mislead the American people regarding what happened, and Benghazi wasn’t and isn’t a disturbing cover-up pointing directly at the President of the United States. It’s as if Republicans just made up everything that Susan Rice said about Benghazi. That is their argument, such as liberal arguments go.
It’s also as if Republicans never embraced J.C. Watts or Allen West or Secretary of State Condi Rice or once dreamed of a Colin Powell run for the presidency against Bill Clinton. It’s as if Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Susana Martinez, Tim Scott, Mia Love and so forth don’t exist. Democrats systematically prevented Miguel Estrada’s ascension to the Supreme Court in the Bush years because he is Hispanic — that’s what the Democrat talking points against him actually said — and they systematically rejected black Republicans around the nation last week. But we Republicans are the racists. Liberals have been taught to hate us, and they’re teaching their kids and millions of kids in school to hate us too. There is no reasoning with hate.
The last Republican administration had two black secretaries of state, one of them female. And her name was Rice! But in the mind of the liberal, neither were actually black, because they were Republicans.
Last week’s re-election of Barack Obama has brought the liberals out in force and confidence like never before. They believe that their 50.7% victory entitles them to force themselves on the rest of us. The failing blue state model leads to bankruptcy but it’s being imposed on the red states via ObamaCare and Obama’s favoritism toward the unions and his regulatory state. Red states who resist will be taken to court, and their leaders can expect the media to hate on them in story after story and editorial after editorial. Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal got a first taste of that treatment today.
Liberals never retrenched or reconsidered their policies after getting defeated in 2010, but they’re lecturing us that we have to change our ways or die. Unions have only read declining membership as a reason to try to force people to unionize whether they want to or not. Liberals are now pushing very aggressively to destroy companies that do not comport with their world view. Papa John’s resists ObamaCare’s tax hikes? Boycott him. Walmart wants to remain union-free? Tough, walk out on their biggest revenue day of the year. Hostess closes down, citing a poor economy and unreasonable union demands? Well, it was management or Bain Capital’s fault. Government is never ever wrong (unless a Republican happens to be in charge), unions are never ever wrong, corporate management is always either evil or incompetent or both. They’re doing it wrong, but unions and governments never do.
The truth is, nobody is always right. And nobody is always wrong. Management can often be blamed for, among other things, striking deals with labor out of short-term fear that lead to long-term problems. It happens all the time. And managers of businesses and unions can be equally human, and therefore equally stupid. Don’t get me stated on government bureaucrats who find their joy in expanding their personal empires at taxpayer expense. That, also, happens every day. My life experiences have taught me that there are far fewer heroes than there are villains, and many of the villains are just idiots. Most of the heroes don’t stand up to close examination.
The fact that many liberals who always blame management have never run a business in their lives never gets in their way. They just voted to re-elect a man who has no business experience apart from shaking businesses down and threatening them. They expect the economy to thrive under such a man? Not really, but they don’t really care either.
Maybe more of these companies that the unions and liberals target should fail. We conservatives defend them, but why? Many of these companies have empowered the Democrats in one way or another over the years. Hillary Clinton used to sit on Walmart’s board. All-American agribusinesses have championed the very open borders policies that are leading, now, to a massive and irresistible entitlement state. Maybe the people who lose their jobs to ObamaCare and idiotic leftist boycotts will finally wake up. Those 18,000 who lost their jobs at Hostess may, one day, realize that their own union helped destroy their jobs. Maybe the government will finally start running out of faces to stomp on.
Now, we’re looking at the fiscal cliff in Washington. An increasing number of Democrats say they’re fine with going over that cliff, knowing full well that it will lead the US economy back into recession. That will mean more jobs are lost. That will mean the US gets weaker militarily overnight. That will mean more misery within and without the US. And these Democrats don’t care. There is no evidence that Barack Obama cares about preventing us from going over the cliff. They have maneuvered Republicans into the position of blame, and when we go off the cliff, they and the media will blame the Republicans even though sequestration was the Obama White House’s idea. I would point out that he lied about that in one of the debates, but some liberal will call me a racist.
Maybe we should let the the place burn. Among the downsides is that for those of us who have kids, we know that their future is bleak if liberals get their way. We’ve seen this movie before, though it was always shot on location outside the United States. Many, many lives will be upended and destroyed and the freedom of choice that liberals claim to cherish will die. Don’t want to join a union? Too bad. Don’t want your tax dollars to pay for something that your faith tells you is deeply wrong? Too bad. Don’t want your paycheck skimmed to keep Democrats in power? Too bad. Don’t want to grow entitlements to the point that they overwhelm everything else and bankrupt the country you love? Too bad. Get used to it. 50.7% of America can’t be wrong!
But hey, this is all just what happens when you “fundamentally transform” something, as Obama promised to do four years ago. You have to destroy it first.
No, I am not letting it burn. I am not putting it out unilaterally, either. I will do what little I can–and I fear it will be very little indeed–and be satisfied with that.
Over the cliff we go.
Or, as Paula would say “ALL up IN your snatch.
Remember Y2K? Nada, right? None of these crises turn out to be crises.
Let’s roll.
The Y2K “non-crisis” was a non-crisis only because a great many people put a great deal of effort into making sure it was not a crisis. I can think of at least one example where a paperwork issue would have caused the FDA to reject very hard to replace new stock of pharmaceuticals–or their own regs, guess which one is more likely–because several customers were still using long lead time systems which would have screwed up from the Y2K “bug”. It was never anticipated that those electronics would still be in use more than 20 years later.
It will burn, whether we decide to let it or not. It is over.
Yes, Pandora’s box has been opened.
True.
I think it may in fact burn, and I think by normal way of doing things, it may in fact be over.
The normal way of doing things is not the entire universe of ways of doing things.
Look more carefully at the electoral map by counties, and you will see what will burn.
When the bread,(that which IS baked), stops coming in to the cities in cheap quantities because of the higher cost of…everything…and the power is turned off in large swaths of the metro areas, they will burn.
At first they might burn things to rage, and then they will burn things to stay warm.
In the last stages they will burn things to eat each other.
And last of all, we who inherit will burn their corpses to prevent disease, whether we find them dead of exposure and starvation in their hives or whether they are found shot to death for venturing out into the country to steal from us our sustenance.
I’ve been telling anyone that would listen that even if Mitt Romney had won, a single vote and a majority Congress wasn’t going to fix what ails us. If we were saying President Romney this moment, you’re still left with a minimum 60,000,000 imbeciles to rectify, a corrupt media, a self-serving banking system, a decadent entertainment industry, a bankrupt public school system, and an entitled and immoral nation to contend.
I’m afraid the only way it fixes itself is to let it burn, or separate ourselves – and separation won’t come peacefully, because as much as they hate our guts, many of them also know that without us, their gravy train is going off the tracks.
But I’m glad that many are now understanding this liberal/progressive/pinko persuasion just doesn’t simply disagree with our ideas and opinions. They wish for us to disappear from the face of the earth, but leave the assets with them.
I see a very bloody day coming to a head.
Your first paragraph nails the crux of our problem: the Left has assiduously infiltrated the social institutions of cultural establishment (education, news media and entertainment). Our culture is largely defined by them. Our kids are injected with liberal BS from Day One, our news media defines what is and is not news, who is and is not the bad guy, and runs block for Democratic politicians. Obama wearing a leather jacket is news. Benghazi? What’s Benghazi?
Our country is corrupt beyond repair but not beyond collapse. First will come the collapse, and then the revolution, and bloody it will be. Count on it. Sixty million people who believe that parasitism is the new work ethic must be forcibly divested of their beliefs. Only collapse will do that. And when this nation looks as bleak as the Great Depression and hope is at least 15 years away, the shooting will begin.
I have no faith that the great American experiment, as defined by the Founders, will continue in its present form. Remember when the Taliban blew up those Bhuddist statues? There are millions of “Americans” that would gladly do the same to Mt. Rushmore.
I was disgusted that this country elected a community organizer to be its leader; but I am horrified beyond words that it re-elected the most pathetic, brain-dead, lying POS to ever set foot in the Oval Office. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is a relic. Welcome to Americastan.
… And when this nation looks as bleak as the Great Depression and hope is at least 15 years away, the shooting will begin. …
And when the shooting does begin, remember which side of the great cultural divide has the guns.
I agree, our national house is so infested with vermin that it’s no longer structurally sound. If you’ve got a house barely standing due to termites eating out the structure, with the rooms so full of roaches and rats that it is unlivable, what do you do with it?
Burn
Clearly, it isn’t just the Democrats and their 50.7% who don’t want to put out the fires that are destroying our Republic. Many other Americans either refuse to see how bad it is or or just don’t want to deal with it.
As such, let it burn! Maybe if things get bad enough…
Now or later, we’ve reached the edge of the cliff and we’re going over. It’s just a matter of when.
I’m fearful, but I think we just need to let it go and pick up the pieces. It’s going no matter what we do, so let’s get on with it.
– commented sooner, but the main street is lousy with “homeless” begging and blocking the way. Oh, that’s right: they don’t exist anymore. Obama and his DEMedia solved by just ignoring. I just put in their begging cups slips of paper with “OBAMA” written on them. He is their one true god and will save them.
I’ve said it before…
Conservatives thing Liberals are wrong and mistaken in their policies. We believe that Liberals can learn, that, with education, they can do better. We have compassion, maybe even pity for them, but, as a rule, we don’t wish bad on them.
Liberals believe that conservatives are the very incarnation of evil. They believe we are the devil himself taken human form. They have no compassion, no pity, no sense of right or wrong. If you’re facing the devil, there are no rules. All that counts is WINNING. They don’t care what names they call us. They don’t care what they have to do to win. They’re willing to lie, cheat, steal and kill in order to win. If you were facing the devil himself, wouldn’t you?
This is why liberals use Alinsky tactics so well and Conservatives don’t have that kind of success. The liberals have no compassion, they simply do not care how many lives, businesses or jobs they destroy. All that matters is winning.
Let it burn, indeed. Or as we sometimes say it around here; Darwin Never Sleeps.
1) The Left, exemplified by the Democrats, has every intention of destroying the economy of the country. Their leadership has the resources to survive such and remain in control [they think] and their followers do not have the reality testing to understand that when the great flushing sound comes; they are going to be swirling around the bowl too.
2) The Institutional Republicans and the TEA Party/Patriot movement do not have the slightest lever to stop them. For all that Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution places the “power of the purse” in the hands of the House of Representatives; that power has been rendered totally moot. We have not had a Constitutional budget for 4 years. This is because the Democrat controlled Senate simply refuses to vote on any budget bill passed by the House. This enables the Democrat Executive Branch to spend whatever it wants, on whatever it wants with no accountability, through the expedient of having the Federal Reserve “buy” US government securities with money it “prints” on demand. The expected new Chair of the Senate Budget Committee is on record as saying that they do not need to do a budget for at least another year.
The only tool that the House has is when the Debt Ceiling for those government securities is reached; and that involves a far stronger spine and a higher testosterone count than any of the Institutional Republicans have. Further, they fear insisting on the Constitution, because they are afraid that Obama will simply void that section by decree and make them officially irrelevant. It is the Republican Speaker of the House’s desperate attempt to avoid taking a stand that led to the current “Fiscal Cliff”
3) If we cannot stop the Democrats from destroying the economy, would resistance work? No. With the Journo-List 2.0 media willing to testify to any outrageous lie uttered on behalf of the Left; all resistance would do would be to give them an opening and confirmation that when things inevitably fail, it can be blamed on Republican foot-dragging. Thus we get the normal Republican result, losing and taking the blame for what the Democrats do.
4) If I, and more than a couple of others, had our choice; the Republicans would give up on fighting the inevitable tax increases. Let them propose what they will. Have the Republicans vote “present”; and make it a purely Democrat affair. I hope to see the looks on the Democrats’ faces on C-Span when they realize they have no cover. The only thing I personally would like to see added to the tax increases would be a “net worth tax” on everybody with a net worth of greater than $10,000,000; which would hit the Democrats’ supporters hard.
5) Fight like hell for liberty interests after giving up on taxes. Preservation of the First and Second Amendments may be beyond our reach. But we need to try.
6) This will not preserve the current United States. That is no longer possible. It will not win any future elections, because they are now rigged. It will hopefully provide the beginnings of a basis for the eventual rise of a Second American Republic with new safeguards against the Left after the husk we have now finishes crashing to the ground and burning.
The coming Long Night is going to be dark, and cold, and hungry. And Darwin Never Sleeps.
Subotai Bahadur
We have the example of the collapse of the CCCP – the Soviet Union. It lasted about 3 generations, and triumphed in World War II, despite Stalin’s slow-motion slaughter of somewhere between 10 and 20 MILLIONS of his own subjects in the 1920s and 30s. I believe the relative success of the U.S. model nudged the Soviet system toward its end, but that the system was structured so as to devour itself, regardless of external factors.
A lot of people like to indulge in the conceit that without U.S. supplies, trucks, aircraft, and such, the NAZI wehrmacht would have defeated the Russias, but Hitler had made the same arrogant mis-calculation that was the death of millions of Napoleon’s soldiers. The steppes are incomprehensibly vast, beyond the reckoning of people who had lived for centuries within a stone’s throw (or rifle shot) of each other. In the end, it seems Russia had more soldiers than the Nazis had cannon shot.
And the winters defeat the imagination of Europeans kept relatively warm by the Atlantic gyres. It’s a brutal combination. Obama and the ambitious ones who think of themselves as his “handlers” would do well to consider the lesson. How puny their schemes and wit really are in the face of the volcanic forces they idly think they control!
In the end, it is not patriots, or conservatives, or independents, or libertarians, or reactionaries, or rabid capitalists that Team Obama needs to fear.
It is their own inability to grasp reality, pretending their pimple-ravaged adolescent mythologies trump physics, chemistry, and mathematics.
They can bully, extort, even murder as many people as they like, but they can’t bully the moon into stopping the tide.
Reality will catch them up. It may take a while, but they will join Ozymandias before they ever bring about a thousand year Reich.
The sad truth is that to really change America as the subversives want, you must first destroy its military and economic power, and only THEN, when you have large numbers of perfectly desperate people, and REAL poverty, not the false poverty of today, you can start a revolution.
We are just in the first phase.
Hostess is a good start. Unfortunately, the Twinkie paid the price.
The Twinkie has gone Galt. The rest of us are right behind him.
I don’t hate liberals; I merely think they are an insane suicide cult that will destroy Western civilization.
I agree with Fail Burton. Turn to the book of revelations. I believe this is the breaking of the final seal.
Obama does speak in political mazes but if you look in the speech he always has one statemet that is point blank. Like when he said he was pretty much glad gas prices were high so we would have to get of fossil fuels. Of course that means we will all suffer for it but he leaves that part out.
Let it burn?
I’m sorry if this seems contrary, but our national house is already ablaze. Our original constitutional republic was gutted from within by the self-styled “progressives,” and is now a constitutional republic in name only. It’s a “progressive” oligarchy.
The rule of law is a topic for politicians’ campaign speeches. Our president is a congenital liar, a communist, and a felon. Our law enforcement officer of highest rank is an open racist and felon. Our elected misrepresentatives and Supreme Court justices scarcely go through the motions of pretending to discharge their responsibilities. Our elections have been reduced to half-heartedly veiled exercises in fraud. Our military has been mired in unwinnable land wars in Asia eleven years while doing naught to safeguard the nation against Islamic jihad. Our putative “free” press has largely devolved into a Pravda-style propaganda operation. Our State Department, complete with high Muslim Brotherhood leader masquerading as the secretary of State’s chief assistant, has viciously turned on our ally Israel to aid and abet and hand billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to Islamic terrorist regimes throughout the Middle East. The United States arms criminals and dictators and tyrants and narcotics cartels the world over, yet seeks to disarm its own law-abiding citizenry. It has consigned millions of naive, poorly educated citizens to state serfdom. It has has gone $16 trillion into debt with naught more substantial to show for it than uncounted and perhaps uncountable billions in so-called “green energy” fantasy companies owned and managed by political favorites. Our all-wise, all-powerful rulers have endorsed the pseudo-science of “anthropogenic global warming” while simultaneously keeping the nation dependent on oil imported at great cost from Islamic terrorist states and refusing to allow us, the people to pursue energy independence. Our currency is being devalued to fuel an appearance of prosperity. Our rulers have seized control of the so-called “health care” industry, amounting to roughly a sixth of the nation’s economy, and hired thousands of IRS agents to manage compliance with its new laws. Our rulers are threatening to gut our admittedly incompetent national defense forces unless they’re granted still more punitive taxes on “the rich” in the names of “fairness” and “the poor.”
The gutted shell of our constitutional republic is engulfed in flames. How, I ask, could we possibly let or not let it finish burning to the ground?
There is a difference between liberals and conservatives and hate.
Liberals hate conservatives as individuals while conservatives hate liberals’ ideals, maybe along with a few individual liberals who are particularly odious or who bay loudest for the blood of non-Obama believers.
So, while conservatives would like to overturn the always-failed liberal ideals and go back to what works, liberals want to set up the camps to eliminate conservatives (then liberals who aren’t liberals enough, followed by another purge, etc.) Liberals are simply the totalitarian herd, the same mass that has been lead to commit mass slaughter of their own neighbor since Ancient Greece to Hitler and Stalin, to the Rwanda genocide, etc. They really are a lot more of a danger than most are willing to admit.
Heres the problem. In these times, keep your mouth shut in public forums about somebody until you have goods on them that is not outright or even marginally subjective in nature. On the other hand, people need to weight the issue(s) they’re pursuing on the old gram scale. If its negligible in the greater scope of things well…
Political emotions seem these days to rule over sound strategy!
Letting it burn IS one option, not that we ultimately can control whether or not it does burn. It may be the equivalent of a controlled burn is the best we can hope for.
For all those who think we have to let things implode before they can get better, I have a few examples of people who thought things would eventually get better as well if they just stuck it out long enough.
The Romans after their city was sacked.
The Germans in 1918.
The native people of England in 1066.
The Romanovs as they were being held prisoner.
The Chinese during the 1940′s.
The Japanese citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on December 8th, 1941.
General Lee in 1861 (ok, that one really hurt – and continues to have repercussions 150 years later).
The point is, their hopes were futile. Things generally didn’t get better in their lifetimes.
The Roman Empire ceased to exist and its people became vulnerable to all manner of enemies.
The Germans saw defeat, depression, hyperinflation, the rise of a dictator, and then their very nation was divided against their will.
The natives of England lost their freedom as Norman invaders took everything from them.
The Romanovs ended up in a grave.
The Chinese got generations of poverty, got used for cannon fodder in Korea, and suffered through both mass starvation as well as mandated one child per family dictates from the government.
The Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki….well, no need to elaborate on them…
Then we have one that hits closer to home.
The loss of the Confederate States of America to Union forces – which forever sealed away from posterity any concept of a limited government. Might makes right in this country since 1865, and if you are too much of a headache the government can and will get you one way or another.
“Let it burn”? I’d suggest it’s been ashes for quite a while now.
Still, one should never give up. Now I have to go do a little research to do on Jefferson that may be pertinent to what we face now…
OK, found the information I was looking for.
It’s an excerpt from a letter that Thomas Jefferson sent to William B. Giles dated December 26, 1825. The specific quote I was looking for is this:
“Under the authority to establish post roads, they claim that of cutting down mountains for the construction of roads, of digging canals, and aided by a little sophistry on the words “general welfare,” a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare. And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves? They are joined in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient voting together to out-number the sound parts; and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Are we then to stand to our arms, with the hot-headed Georgian? No. That must be the last resource, not to be thought of until much longer and greater sufferings. If every infraction of a compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none can ever be formed which would last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance then with our brethren while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences; keep ourselves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents; and separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers. Between these two evils, when we must make a choice, there can be no hesitation.”
So, here we have Jefferson describing events that bear a remarkable resemblence to our own current dilemma, and advocating continued patience for yet a time longer as he envisions them coming to their senses – and in his own time suggesting that he and Giles position themselves to profit from the foreseen “chapter of accidents” he envisions as coming as they experience the consequences of their actions.
I’d say that’s sound advice – but how does one profit from our current crop of socialists? Perhaps it is something as simple as having bread stocked up when they are hungry and desperate?
Sell your deception someplace else Scott. The federal government had no powers after the war it did not have before the war, neither did it employ any powers during the war which were unconstitutional. Not one.
You should be reminded that the whole time Jefferson railed about mistaken views of government, and corrupt ones, he felt it was a fine and dandy thing for children to be whipped into working for him, for he himself to sell families apart from each other, and for government to be subservient to and reinforce a social model which held Jefferson and his vile ilk to be the pinnacle of society; to whom all should crawl for favors. Oh and by the way, that the North should pay for Jefferson’s escaped labor to be returned to him, and that Northern Juries should be overthrown to further that end.
Hamilton did not want a more aristocratic or more corrupt government than Jefferson did, he just wanted a US not beholden to foreign finance, and that entry to the “aristocracy” be more meritocratic than by birth.
To hell and be damned to every Confederate traitor and their every apologist breathing today.
“To hell and be damned to every Confederate traitor and their every apologist breathing today.”
Ok, that one I got a laugh out of! I’m sure the British railed against that traitor Washington for quite a few years after the Revolution as well…
It seems just mentioning the Confederate States of America is enough to send you into spasms, so much so that you didn’t even bother to read the context of what I placed that reference within before you went well off topic.
I’ll go ahead and apologize to any others who wish to wade through this – but history is history and what has been said is what has been said.
You accuse me of being deceitful, so herewith is a small portion of evidence backing my viewpoints. It doesn’t mean I am calling for secession now – only that I think the Confederacy had the better of the constitutional argument in 1861.
Please note I am discussing constitutional issues, while you are clamoring on about moral issues. I do not defend the morality of slavery, only note the evidence of the constitutionality of secession prior to 1865 – which is when it was changed by force of arms in the hands of a union army.
Let’s start with the whole secession theory, shall we?
Secession is only a denied course of action to the states because Lincoln engaged in a war to stop it. Simple as that. Prior to Lincoln being president, plenty of Founding Fathers as well as previous presidents of far greater stature held the opposite opinion.
Every one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, for instance, felt they had a right that exceeded mere legalities to secede from the British Empire.
When you get into the time frame within which the Constitution was written, you find two states, Virginia and New York, stating an explicit right to secede when ratifying it.
There was apparently no controversy, and rights recognized for one state must be recognized for all states.
Now let’s look at a few quotes from the Founding Fathers that would establish exactly WHY secession was considered a constitutional option even by the New England states at one point.
Oh, that would be the secessionist movement that was headed up by that stalwart Southerner Timothy Pickering of the great Southern state of…..Massachusetts? /s
By the way, did you know that Pickering was Chief of Staff for (drum roll please) George Washington?
Speaking of Washington. Read his farewell address.
He specifically implores the people to NOT break up the new country. He didn’t say they didn’t have the right, he didn’t point to the Constitution to any provision forbidding them from seceding, and by bringing it up he acknowledges that it was a concept given solid credence at the time.
Perhaps that’s because he’d led a secession movement himself!
Then you have the second president of the United States, John Adams. Let’s take a look at what he said:
“Only ‘repeated, multiplied oppressions’ placing it beyond all doubt ‘that their rulers had formed settled plans to deprive them of their liberties’, could warrant the concerted resistance of the people against their government.”
Sounds like he figured secession was an option, even if one only to be engaged in under the gravest of circumstances.
Third president, Thomas Jefferson.
“If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.”
Yeah, yeah, we know you hate Jefferson, but bear with me here….
Fourth president, James Madison
“a breach of any one article by any one party, leaves all other parties at liberty to consider the whole convention as dissolved.”
Even though Madison is nominally described as being against secession, that quote pretty much confirms that underneath it all, at some layer, he still had the idea that if portions of the Constitution were breached then it broke the agreement for all. One can consider a plan of action ill concieved, yet agree that it is legal.
Fifth president, James Monroe
“But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy.”
Monroe was against secession, and this quote is from a letter congratulating Daniel Webster on a speech he gave in the Senate pushing back on both nullification and secession feelings in the country.
Still, even in rejecting secession “at will” he continues to recognize that it is still a course of action under certain circumstances and appears concerned that Webster is not clarifying the difference.
Best verdict, he was against it as a practical matter but still recognized the right under specific circumstances. Not an unreasonable position to take.
Sixth president, John Quincy Adams.
“But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the RIGHT, but in the HEART. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it !) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference, or collision of interests shall fester into hatred, the bonds of political association – will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies ; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship with each other than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect Union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the center.”
Well, that’s clear enough I guess, even for you dear Mr. Perkins.
Seventh president, Andrew Jackson.
Anti-secessionist and therefore no quotes necessary.
But then again, after reviewing his term in office (hint, google “trail of tears”, “spoils system”, “Second Bank of the United States”, created what became the modern Democrat party), you can have him and his views.
Eight president, Martin Van Buren.
Anti-secessionist. No quibbling necessary to arrive at that conclusion.
Ninth president, William Henry Harrison.
I am admittedly having a hard time finding his views on secession – but we do know who his vice president was, and it’s not a stretch to suggest they shared at least some views on different subjects. His vice president was John Tyler.
Tenth president, John Tyler.
Not only did he support secession, he actually was elected to serve in the Congress of the Confederate States of America.
Do you really need any quotes?
Eleventh president, James K. Polk.
Likely an anti-secessionist, but it’s telling that even as states seceded under his watch he took no actions to stop them.
Then ya have ol abe. I quoted this to you before and you didn’t respond, so I’ll do so again.
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,– most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”
And of course he was referring to seceding from Mexico by Texas, but his sentiments seemed clear just a few years before the creation of the Confederacy.
I guess THAT was just totally different…for ah….some reason….
I’d say as a practical matter, the states did feel they had the right to secede prior to 1865, that the evidence was supportive of that viewpoint, so that alone is one difference pre- vs post-war. The change in the nature of the relationship between the federal and state governments at that time is fundamental. To argue otherwise is ludicrous.
Now, let’s address the slavery issue that you seem so fixated upon, and the scorn you heap on Jefferson. Let’s see just how even handed you are in that department. Let’s look at some Founding Fathers and some former presidents who owned slaves.
George Washington.
AKA, the Father of our country. First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen. His leadership set the bar for all that followed and he is still considered by the British to be the single most dangerous enemy they ever faced. Set an example for presidential behavior and deferral to Congress that lasted for a little less than a century. Without him, it’s safe to say there would have been no United States to begin with.
Oh, but he was slave owner so you must hate him if your attitude towards Jefferson is any clue…unless of course you are not going to be consistent.
James Madison.
The Father of the Constitution, the single greatest political document mankind has ever been graced with that literally created the country.
Oh wait, he was a slave owner too. Egads! To be consistent thou must hate him as well! The horror….
James Monroe.
He of the Monroe Doctrine. A president involved in setting up colonies in Africa specifically for the purpose of creating a home for what was to be former slaves in a nation that came to be called Liberia. An interesting side note, as Robert E. Lee he freed his slaves some of them ended up in Liberia – and he maintained cordial friendships with them afterwards and continued to correspond with them by mutual and enthusiastic consent.
Oops, Monroe was a slave owner too. Haters gotta hate, so I guess ya gotta hate away…still he is on your side of the secession argument so I guess you’ll excuse him.
Andrew Jackson.
Hero of the Battle of New Orleans, and scarred for life when as a child a British officer slashed him with a sword. Old Hickory was so tough he once took a lead ball to the chest without flinching, then took careful aim at his dueling opponent and shot him dead.
Guess ya gotta hate him though as he too was slave owner. Isn’t that a bit hard though, seeing as how he was against secession at the same time?
Martin Van Buren.
Native of the state of New York – which I probably need to inform you is quite a ways from Dixie, and a Democrat of the decidedly non-Southern persuasion.
Ooops, he had slaves. Guess ya gotta hate him too. But…but…but..he was from New York – how can this be! And not only that, he was anti-secessionist. I’ll leave it to you how you untangle your feelings about him.
William Henry Harrison.
His father actually signed the Declaration of Independence.
Sorry, he was slave owner as well – even when he traveled into non-slave territory. His slaves became “indentured servants” under terms that were basically still slavery.
Very active politically in those bastions of Southern slave owning culture known as Ohio and Indiana….(yes, that was sarcasm).
Guess ya gotta hate him too. Still, he never really did anything in office since he died so soon after taking the oath.
John Tyler.
Ooooh, you get a twofer here!
He was not only a President of the United States who owned slaves, he also supported the states rights to secede!
Not only that – and I’m sure you’ll get a kick out of this – but he also was elected to serve in the Congress of the Confederate States of America!
But I’m sure you’ll simply claim Lincoln’s view was correct on secession and Tyler’s view was incorrect on secession…because…ahh…uhm…..yeah, whatever.
James Polk.
He ranks quite favorably on the list of greatest presidents, ya know. He expanded the US territory to include the Pacific Northwest, Texas, and the Southwest all the way to the Pacific Ocean.
Oh, did you know Lincoln opposed him in this?
Anyway, he too was slave owner so I guess that undermines anything else he accomplished.
Zachary Taylor.
Whig Party – same as Lincoln was at one point. Military commander who had a lot to do with how our territory expanded under Polk. Apparently was of the opinion that California and New Mexico would come in as non-slave states and was ok with it, and apparently did some political manuevering to make sure those territories came in as states – and nonslave states at that!
Oops, slave owner.
James Buchanan.
Mixed bag and it could be argued either way. He actually purchased slaves, but then kept them as indentured servants.
Andrew Johnson.
Vice President to Ol’ Dishonest Abe Lincoln during the Civil War.
Southerner! Tennessean pro-unionist pro-slavery democrat! President during the beginning of Reconstruction after Lincoln lost his head.
Yep – slave owner.
As a matter of fact, in a letter to Gov. Thomas C. Fletcher of Missouri he wrote, “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government for white men.”
If it makes you feel any better, we’re not too fond of Johnson in the South either.
Ulysses S. Grant
That savior of the Union. That author of General Order No. 11.
Hate to break it to ya, but he too was slave owner. He could be a bit more eloquent on the subject of slavery as well, for instance:
“Sir, I have no doubt in the world that the sole object is the restoration of the Union. I will say further, though, that I am a Democrat – every man in my regiment is a Democrat – and whenever I shall be convinced that this war has for its object anything else than what I have mentioned, or that the Government designs to use its soldiers to execute the purposes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier that I will not only resign my commission, but will carry my sword to the other side, and cast my lot with that people.”
And of course there is the slightly more famous statement he made when asked why he didn’t free his slaves until the relevant amendment had been passed.
“Good help is hard to find.”
So, of the first 18 presidents, only five DIDN’T own slaves at all. Hope you have enough hate to go around for all of ‘em. Aw, who am I kidding, sure ya do!
Just don’t expect anyone to line up behind you when you start your criticisms with Washington.
Now, how’s about you give us an opinion on whether we should currently just let the country go down in flames or continue the good fight to save it, or whether it is in fact too far gone to save at this point?
You know, getting back on topic and all….
———————–
First of all, I love the fact I have gotten so far under your skin. Doing that to someone with such obvious loathing of the South does my hear good. I can just imagine the spittle running down your chin as you foam at the mouth while repeating the propaganda you so desperately cling to.
Let’s try another approach, shall we, since you are a little slow on fact and kind of full of …..well, we’ll just say your own opinions.
For Lincoln to have been correct from a legal AND constitutional position, the following would have had to happen.
First, the states in ratifying the Constitution would have to agree that it was a permanent union and that no legitimate reason would ever justify leaving – period.
Yeah, I can see that argument going well during the ratification process among the states immediately after the colonies had just seceded from the British Empire……
Then you have to assume that, if the states took that position, that they likewise acknowledged that the president, as commander-and-chief, would have the authority to then raise an army without a declaration of war, invade any of the signatory states ratifying the Constitution at that time, overthrow its state legislature and governor and all elected officials down to county sheriff, and appoint replacements from other states, and then declare martial law for an indefinite period of time.
In the process, those states ratifying the Constitution and joining the union voluntarily, would have agreed that the Constitution would be the law of the land that everyone had to abide by EXCEPT that the president in the above noted circumstances would be able to exercise authority not specifically granted to the federal government or the executive branch – even though those same founding fathers also included an amendment in the bill of rights specifically stating that ALL POWERS not delegated to the federal government WERE RETAINED by the states and the people, respectively. The authority to secede was a power claimed by the states and was never specifically surrendered at the constitutional convention.
So basically, you are arguing that that old weasely politician named Lincoln was given the authority under the constitution to exercise power not delegated to him by the constitution as those powers were not specifically ever handed over to the federal government by the states in the first place, states which had soveriegn authority, and that he could then suspend the constitution – while simultaneously claiming that as the source of his authority – to exercise powers he was not and could not be granted by that same constitution….you know, the one he was ignoring….as the states never specifically delegated that power to the federal government.
And let’s not forget that Lincoln was also on the record as supporting the secession of Texas (wherein slavery was practiced) from Mexico. The South had the same level of legal authority – but it was too inconvenient for Lincoln to acknowledge while waging an unconstitutional and undeclared war.
No wonder the north never seriously tried to charge the Confederate States leadership with treason as even a kangaroo court would have had a hard time with that logic.
Face it – Lincoln never had the authority he exercised unconstitutionally to keep the Confederate States in the union. The Confederate States were not attempting to overthrow the United States government – which would have been treasonous – but rather were exercising the constitutional authority they retained as a condition when agreeing to enter the union in the first place.
November 9, 2012 – 7:22 pm Link to this Comment Scottch
Oh, and a few other things.
When the orignal 13 states (formed from the original 13 colonies that seceded from the British Empire) formed a government, that original organization was under the Articles of Confederation. That document contained the phrase “perpetual union”.
It was obviously not so “perpetual” since we no longer operate under that document.
Then we get into the constitutional convention itself.
As part of their own state constitutions, the states of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island specifically noted that they retained the right to secession, and this condition was part of the understanding under which these states joined the union.
Other states did not place similar references in their own constitutions – but they didn’t feel the need to.
For instance, believe it or not there was an argument against incorporating a Bill of Rights into the Constitution. \
The argument was that rights were so self evident that no listing was necessary, and there was also a fear that if rights were listed then the government could take the position that those were the only rights the people or states had – hence the inclusion of the 10th Amendment.
I think we can all agree that it’s a good thing that the Bill of Rights was ultimately included over the objections of the naysayers.
As with the argument that no bill of rights was necessary, many likewise felt that no specific enunciation of a right to secede was necessary either as, like the Bill of Rights, that right was self-evident.
At any rate, the states of New York, Virginia, and Rhode Island were not claiming anything that the other states did not likewise feel they also had the right do, and any rights that one state had then all would have had equally.
Oh, and George Washington himself presided over the constitutional convention.
Then a few decades after the creation of the United States, Timothy Pickering, who had served as the third US Secretary of State under those former British secessionists George Washington and John Adams, was a central figure in the secessionist movement in New England that wanted to leave the United States to the Southern states and form their own country.
Later still there was yet another secessionist movement after the War of 1812 suggesting the original 13 states pull out of the union and leave the US to the remaining states.
Then we have ol (dis)honest Abe Lincoln’s thoughts on secession as well.
“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,– most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit.”
Oh wait, that applied only to TEXAS seceding from MEXICO….he was such a hypocrit.
Well said, and consider your arguments stolen. Among other things, I do Living History for fun. Depending on the event and era I am a 12 lb. Mountain Howitzer gunner in the 1st US Dragoons, a gunner with the 4th US Artillery during the Civil War, or a Confederate private in the 47th Virginia Infantry. In the last role, I team up with a Yankee Sgt. from the 5th US Infantry and we set up a camp at a K-12 school and do a presentation on life in both armies, tactics in attack and defense, musket drill, and why we fight.
I use some of your arguments, the Hartford Convention [where the New England States voted to secede from the Union], and an agency law approach to the Federal government. You can tell that most of the time the kids have never heard an argument from the Confederate point of view.
After the main presentation is over and I am talking to the kids out of role, I will sometimes mention one of the older books in my collection. It is a textbook on constitutional law, written at and used at Harvard Law School in 1850. It is where I got the agency law approach. The Federal government is considered an agent hired by the sovereign States to perform specific functions. A principal can always fire his agent. It may involve specific damages, but a principal can always fire his agent.
This is 1850, and from the premier law school of “Yankeedom”.
I have no love for slavery. Hell, I’m Chinese, and Americans did not count us as human beings from the 1890′s to 1943. There was, by the way, at least one free Chinese in a Georgia artillery unit at Gettysburg. He was granted a pension by the State of Georgia for his service, post war.
But I have also sworn an Oath to the Constitution, as written not as ignored. And implicit in the concept of people consenting to rules of government, is the parallel concept of that consent being withdrawn if the government unilaterally violates those rules. Mindless obedience to tyranny is incompatible with freedom, no matter what the tyrant says. Where that line gets drawn, is something to be determined by individuals, and later groups. If a critical mass is reached, the consent is withdrawn and the government is no longer legitimate; with all that implies.
There can and will be arguments as to where the line is. But there is no doubt that it can be drawn.
Subotai Bahadur
I’d kindly suggest to Mr. Perkins that we two are not the only ones who “get it” regarding how the Constitution was originally understood – though I guess in his view you must be some kind of racist who adores the idea of slavery….
You might be in a better posititon to research something I heard about once, and that is that there was at least one constitutional law class that West Point had as part of the curriculum prior to 1860, that this law class was taught by a professor out of his own text, and that this text instructed the West Point cadets that the states had a right to secede.
Still looking for the specifics on that one, but it would definitely explain why West Point was so well represented in Confederate ranks.
Oh, and feel free to steal away my arguments! The more who understand history, the better chance we have of ever returning to the original meaning of the Constitution!
It’s pretty much guaranteed to burn one way or another. What is the true credit limit of the US? At what point will people stop lending to us to keep our government and economy artificially afloat? Is the limit $20Trillion? $25T? 30T? The answer to this question only shifts the inevitable by a few years at best, because not only is our deficit growing, the rate of increase of deficit is growing, starting under Bush and picking up massive speed under Obama. We’re racking up ~$1T in new debt a year right now, how long until that’s $1.5T? $2T? as the rate of deficit increases it becomes an exponential function. If our true debt limit before total collapse is say $30T, some might be comforted in thinking that we’re only half way there, but the truth is that each consecutive trillion takes less time than the one before it. Obama added more to the deficit in 4 years than Bush did in 8. He may well add more in the next 2 than in the previous 4. See where this is going? Not only do we have old entitlements to contend with, but massive new entitlements and regulations from Obamacare that will strangle the economy, thus decreasing revenue while increasing expenses. As the debt gets higher it will continue to be downgraded, as that happens and inflation kicks in interest rates will have to increase eventually, the interest being payed for with new debt. We’re already in the final stages of an exponential function, it will not end well. F*ck the rest of the country, they’ll get what they voted for good and hard, focus on protecting yourself and your family, that’s the best we can do now.
I should add that things likely will not be better after a collapse. Tyranny is the natural historical order of human affairs, and it’s just re-asserting itself. In trouble times people tend to flock to the false promises and illusion of security offered by tyrants. In some ways this election can be seen as an omen of that. When there’s real trouble they’ll anoint the guy who promises to give them the other guy’s stuff, or even just punish the perceived enemy.
The best scenario we can hope for in a real collapse is a break up like the former soviet union. The populations of some (Red) states are still close enough to the historical American ideals that they may be able to restore a constitutional republic within their borders. The trick would be to keep them from getting re-subsumed by the more powerful and populous blue states, and there will be all manner of tyrants trying to keep the union together at all costs. The only thing that will change the equation vs the last civil war will be that both sides will have nukes. That could either make things go much more smoothly, or a whole lot worse.
If there were ever a general collapse of the federal government, you’d have 50 state governments scrambling to impose state level order with limited resources.
Now, if groups of states among those 50 states banded together in a way that compensated for each others shortcomings – then those states could make a go of it.
Of course, by then, their problems would only just be beginning…still, it would be better than being in a blue state.
For anyone thinking it couldn’t happen, keep in mind how many empires disintegrated over basic finances. The Spanish empire failed due to economic reasons, and the British Empire found itself broke after WWI due to that war. The USSR broke up because their economy imploded.
The US could fail simply due to the dollar collapsing.
The most practical way to break it up would be for the North Eastern and great lakes states become one country (maybe they could try and join Canada or the EU), have the left coast (including eastern Oregon and Washington) become “The People’s Republic of California”, then have the middle states either unify or break into two or three somewhat allied countries. The Northwest (excluding western OR and WA) are fairly similar and would likely form a fairly libertarian country, the deep south could go back to religious or other roots, Texas may well just want to become the lone star republic again, parts of the southwest may go back to Mexico, who knows. I do think though that in the face of a total federal collapse you’d see states align themselves according to cultural and ideological ties with the outcome being 3-5 new countries instead of 50. The areas with large dependent urban populations would have it the worst for sure. There have recently been minor riots in some cities (where 45% of the population is on food stamps) after their EBT cards were refilled a few hours late. When those cards stop working all together those cities will burn.
I agree actually, though I am coming to the conclusion that pointing out that the South would once again band together is probably a sure way for some folks to assume I am wearing a tinfoil kepi.
In my opinion, if the country collapsed you’d have initially the 50 states pretty much on their own for at least a while. Then as one state after an other restored some sort of order they would start assisting their neighboring states.
I’ve seen both SC and VA law enforcement in NC before after major hurricanes, and we’ve sent out own hightway patrol into other states to assist for the same reasons, so there is already some sort of framework for carrying this out.
If the crises continued for very long, I could see states banding together with states that they have a common history and culture with – so once again the Southern states would probably be in the best position in that respect as they share an identifiable culture and history.
Can’t very well see NC law enforcement trying to restore order in Manhatten….
Have you ever read “the Nine Nations of North America”? It was
written in the early 1980s, and argued that there were really
nine nations, based on cultural and economic ties. It’s been
at least a decade since I last read it, but some of the nations
were: Dixie, Empty Quarter, Ecotopia, Foundry, Breadbasket, Islands,
and New England.
Perhaps dividing into these nations is the way to go…
Someone said in a different thread that Obama and his merry band of socialists killed the goose that laid the golden egg (capitalism) in order to have a one time goose feast.
Eat up suckers, because there’s a famine ahead.
speculating about “letting it burn” is irrelevant.
It’s burning, and sans a revolution, it will burn to the ground. (ps: don’t count on that revolution. If they can get away with Benghazi, they can get away with anything. As numerous people have said, the “winner” could filet and eat babies on national TV and his groupies would hail him as the inventor of a new food source that might just get us out of Bush’s depression.)
Meanwhile, Karl Rove is looking at his numbers and planning a comeback of the rinos.
Light it up!
Burn it now – maybe we can rebuild in time for my children.
As for me, I’m planning on bringing popcorn, weenies, and marshmallows.
Obama’s planning on bringing a fiddle
Let it burn? I feel your frustration.
Fight (with words) when you can, go Galt when you can to starve the beast and love your enemy always. The real Kingdom is not a man-made one but one made by nail pierced hands.
I remember tuning into Keith Olbermann’s show twice, to keep an eye on the doings of the other side, maybe even,hey, learn something. I failed in the attempt. The bitterness,abuse, and thoughtless hatred of conservatives,especially prominent conservatives,that poured out of Olbermann’s mouth was so upsetting to me that I could only stand it for about 5 minutes both times, and then gave up. I can’t get Rush Limbaugh on the radio here (we are in the woods,and he is on when I am asleep from my night job), but I listened to him for years back East. He did,on occasion, get very upset on his show, and sometimes call names (“Dingy Harry” sticks out in my mind), but I don’t ever remember him spewing hatred and bitterness. Tremendous disrespect, sometimes, but he never EVER expressed HATRED for people he disagreed with, he saved his hatred for bad IDEAS, like socialism, deficit spending, “outcome-based education” and other such nonsense. It is laughable that liberals and Leftists accuse HIM of hatred. After all, didn’t THEY start calling Tea Party activists an ugly street term for a particular homosexual behavior? Despicable.