This is lunacy; I will not partake in it. Taking up arms when you don’t get your way on economic policy is self-destructive.
I havent' read his essay for a while. But I don't think he's advocating violence.
Just because Lincoln took us down that route doesn't mean a peaceful dissolution of the union could not take place now.
Lets face it: the Blue state majority don't believe a war to oust a horrible dictator who has killed over 1 million people, used WMDs on his minorities, used rape as tool of government repression, and put living humans into plastic bottle shredders and watched them be torn to bits ..... they are unlikey to go to war over a few states opting out of FedGov.
These people could not possible logically support a war to force free Americans who had expressed their will in a free and open election to adhere to a political entity they no longer wanted to be apart of.
Leftists have no ideological straw to anchor them to keeping recalcitrant states in. Most of them already favor letting Hawaii go.
I’ve actually come up with a modest proposal: to have state wide referendums to get a sense of the people that Puerto Rico should not be offered statehood, and/or should be encoraged to seek, and be granted, independence.
The case for no statehood for PR are strong on both the right and on the left.
The right / traditionalist conservative message is that PR is a Spanish speaking state, with a vastly different history and culture. Including it would change America from 50 more or less similar states (or maybe 49 as Hawaii is quite different from the rest) to something more like the British Commonwealth. This is not desirable.
From the leftist point of view the American “colonization” of Puerto Rico is the result of an unjustified war of aggression undertaken by an imperialist America of vicious war mongers on the slightest of pretenses. (I wrote this to sound funny, like the moonbats shrieking at Bush, but in truth it’s a much more accurate description of Tedddy and the Spanish American War then Bush in Iraq).
Also, it would be great fun. It would seperate real conservatives from Faux ones, it would provide endless blovation material for Rush, et al.
Getting to closure on this would begin a new aculturation process where Americans came to see that these things could be resolved peacefully.
Right now everyone goes right back the the civil war.
If we encouraged, through plebescites, PR to gain their independence, if the action of even a few states to say: “No, thanks, we really don’t think you’d make a good 50th state, in fact we don’t want a 50th state at all” ... helped swing the balance (now nearly 50/50) on the island away from statehood and status-quo and into independence we would already have accomplished our goal without even getting to majority status.
That’s a highly leveraged play, like those employed by Rove to win in 2000 and 2004!
It would set the stage for a more realistic discussion about splitting the USA.
If we don’t split and have some areas with the US Constitution in force, we shall have none. Because we ain’t gonna win the East Coast back, and they are too big and powerful to give up their media domination, their control of the Federal Reserve, the stock markets and all the other powers that accrue to them and allow them to dictate all aspects of our lives.
I agree. This will go down even more smoothly, because the first states to "opt out" will be in our Southwest, and the liberal 'tards running the fedgov will fall over themselves in PC fervor to wish them well as they go.
And once Aztlan is gone, there will be no rationale for keeping any other splittist states in the union by force.
In any case, I doubt there will still be 50 states in 25 years.
.jpg)