SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Is Secession Doable? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: tejek who wrote (1790)12/11/2004 3:38:25 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1968
 
Blue States Secession One Southerner’s Perspective

By James Bowden

Liberals are talking about the Blue States seceding from the Union. There’s a map on the Internet of the Blue States joining Canada. This is too serious for idle talk from the chattering class. Secession, if followed by invasion, conquest, occupation and, ultimately, cultural cleansing, is a terrible thing. Trust me, Southerners know about this. We need to help these Liberal hotheads cool down.

First, are the root causes worthy of sundering the Great Experiment – Democracy in America? Apparently, the two most important reasons for secession are partial-birth abortion and homosexual marriage. The Liberals are kidding, right? They can’t live in a society that bans infanticide – as every state did before the U.S. Supreme Court made up law, science and medicine in 1973. And, Liberals can’t survive where homosexuals can’t marry – as they never have, ever, from the tiniest tribe to the greatest (and most decadent) civilizations - until last year in the Netherlands? Ok, maybe we can’t make an argument against the sanctity of life and marriage just to keep the Liberals from leaving.

Second, there are serious survival issues of National Defense. The Red States would probably keep the nukes, since the Blue States would find them so environmentally offensive. I reckon the Red States, with 150 to 200 million people, are the same size of the whole U.S. from WW II through most of the Cold War (WW III). We can field large enough Armed Services since the South, Heartland and West are over-represented in today’s ranks. Red forces can keep women well away from combat – it’s a Southern thing about men protecting women and women nurturing families.

Third, will we lose WW IV? Blue States, like France and Germany, may not want to fight the Islamists anywhere we find their snake pits. Red States could lead the Coalition of the Willing, just as they provide the backbone today for U.S. will. Red States will never abandon Israel – it’s an Evangelical Christian thing about loving the Jews. So, fighting the Islamists for centuries appears not to be a problem.

But, certainly, there has to be some ruin. If the Blue States secede and join socialist, Criminalizing-Christian speech Canada, then they would be like Canada. That means we could ignore the Blue States totally, not care less about what they say or do, and make money trading with them – like Canada? This secession may not be a bad idea after all. Something must be terrible on the domestic front.

First, the Red States could live in a Federal Republic, like the Founders’ intended, with a Constitutionally-limited National Government – and an awesome military. The Blue States couldn’t impose their Liberal rule through a tyrannical judiciary. Today’s Judiciary would be abolished and rebuilt with strict Constitutional constructionist judges.

Second, the Red States could control illegal immigration without black-robed priest kings ruling away sovereignty from the bench. Hey, that means the Red States could control which Yankees move South? We could ban too many from contributing to urban sprawl and never, just never, stop telling us how it isn’t like ‘up North’? Our Judeo-Christian and Confederate heritage could be respected as history. End PC multiculturalism? Yi, Yi!

Third, the Blue States are ‘donor’ states to the Red in taxes that go into Federal programs. The Red States would have to live with fewer Federal programs, lower taxes and less Federal regulation. Possibly, the Red State governments would be poorer but individuals would be more free. Is that a bad thing? Every Southerner is descended from people who were dirt poor, values rich, and heroically strong after that last unpleasant attempt at secession. There are far worse things than being poor. Besides, truth is, the Capitalist Red economy would expand faster than Blue Socialism.

There has to be reason to beg the Blue States to stay. Surely, there’s something.

Hmmm, we will never be ruled by Hillary…makes you wonder.

Okay, just let the Blue States go. We can work out the borders. Big Red will need a corridor across California to San Diego for our Pacific port and fleet. Blue gets Washington, DC. Red gets the Pentagon. Maybe Arlington Cemetery will be an international zone, but Red will guard it. Blue gets the United Nations headquarters and debt. How about a coin toss for the name - United States of America - and for Old Glory as the flag? If Red loses, I know a design we can use with the Cross of St. Andrew.

James A. Bowden has worked as a Defense Department consultant specializing in inter-disciplinary long range ‘futures’ studies for over a decade. He retired from the United States Army after 20 years of service as an Infantry Officer. Mr. Bowden is a 1972 graduate of the United States Military Academy and earned graduate degrees from Harvard University and Columbia University. He resides in Poquoson, VA.



bushcountry.org



To: tejek who wrote (1790)12/11/2004 12:20:10 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1968
 
I'd like to see a tiny federal government,

I certainly would like a smaller federal government as well.

strong enough to protect us but incapable of military adventurism

I'm not sure such a combination is possible.

But I think (I hope) Republicans in the future will return to the ideals of smaller government, no deficits, and little or no involvement in people's personal rights and lives.

In general I hope for the same things. I don't think "no deficits" is going to happen under either party but hopefully we can at least get smaller deficits. "Little or not involvement in people's personal rights and lives", is also something I would like but different people mean different things by it.

2. Stop giving our money to those states in commerce, at least as individuals but maybe even as businesses and (some day) cities and states. (Remember when progressive cities stopped making purchases from Burma?)

Generally calls for such a thing are mostly ignored. If they are not they can do as much or more harm then good.

3. Vote for and work for and donate to federal candidates—including Republicans—that will shrink the federal government and bring federal taxes down to something like a flat 5%.

I just don't see that happening. The majority of people want government benefits. They are not going to toss out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid ect.

Tim