Posted on 04/23/2018 6:27:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
In a piece for The Federalist entitled, “It’s Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous,” writer and former Marine corp combat veteran Jesse Kelly ruffled more than a few feathers with his contention that the time for the United States as a united nation may be nearing an inevitable end.
Comparing the Left and Right in America to “the couple screaming at each other all night, every night as the kids hide in their room,” Kelly cites a congenial divorce as the best option for a country that’s “hopelessly divided” on seemingly every important issue. He even tweeted a helpful accompanying map with a hand-drawn red line ceding the Left coast and the northern states to the liberal governance they deserve.
In his piece, Kelly cites issues from gun control to border security, issues that, while both sides hopelessly disagree, will soon prompt increasingly intolerant Leftists to “start coming for the careers (and lives) of any normal American who sees things differently.”
“We both now agree that living under the other side’s value system is wholly unacceptable,” writes Kelly. “The most peaceful solution we Americans can hope for now is to go our separate ways. So let us come together one last time and agree on one thing: Irreconcilable differences.”
Naturally, Kelly’s idea drew quite a lot of criticism. HotAir’s Jazz Shaw pondered the legality, logistics and workability of such a proposal, but didn’t seem to take a lot of issue with the underlying inevitability.
CNN commentator Sally Kohn took him on when Kelly’s controversial piece earned him an appearance on HLN’s S.E. Cupp Unfiltered. “I’m sure we could find plenty to disagree about, but I actually think there’s quite a lot we could agree on,” said Kohn, citing values like “unity, but also free speech, free assembly, freedom of religion” as well as “the idea that we should all be able to live up to our God-given full potential.”
Except, liberals don’t believe in free speech, much less free assembly. And they don’t really believe in freedom of religion either, at least if you’re a Christian. And that “God” in “God-given?” Are you serious, Kohn?
California State Controller candidate Konstantinos Roditis penned a rebuttal of Kelly’s argument from the right, arguing for a return to real federalism instead of creating more countries. “Jesse, it’s not time for a divorce,” writes Roditis. “It’s time we rise up and take our country back and finally break the shackles of overbearing centralized government and go back to our roots of self-government and self-determination.”
Sounds great, in theory. Let’s ‘take our country back’ and establish REAL small government! Problem is, on what planet will liberals with an already burgeoning near-supermajority possibly allow something like this? After all, Big Government is how these people get stuff done.
While the non-legal arguments against Kelly’s hypothesis seem pretty weak, they say little about what would be best for all parties involved. To a kid who grew up in the 80’s, before unadulterated political correctness infested America’s schools, “Manifest Destiny,” the idea that our settlers were destined to spread all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific, seemed more common sense and a source of pride to me than controversial and worthy of shame. And even now, the idea of America splitting up pulls at the heartstrings just a little.
But let’s face it, America will never again be the America we grew up in. Progressivism has ruined it, and likely beyond repair. Beyond the idea of a nation spreading its wings and conquering the wilderness is that of self-governance, of people being free to live in the kind of place, and under the kind of government, of their choosing, whether what they choose is limited, Constitutional government or utter liberal lunacy.
To Roditis’ point, the states were supposed to be the vehicle for that, under a limited federal government, but we all know how THAT turned out. If we aren’t going to do federalism right, perhaps divorce is the only way forward.
Interestingly, Bill Hammond tweeted a link to both Kelly’s Federalist piece and a Medium article entitled “The Great Lesson of California in America’s New Civil War” from the Left under the caption “These two articles should be hate-read in tandem.” In the Medium piece, Peter Leyden cites California’s example as the way forward for a divisive America. Except, rather than let conservatives pave their own way as Kelly would, Leyden wants to establish “Democratic, progressive supermajorities” in the rest of America.
In other words - tyranny. And make no mistake, if liberals seize control via supermajorities, and they aren’t all that far off, tyranny is how they enact their insane, unworkable policies on the rest of us. Because from Soviet Russia to Communist China and socialist Venezuela, that’s what always happens when Leftists have unadulterated power.
Granted, the idea of bringing up an issue that was seemingly settled over 150 years ago might be quick to dismiss, but in an era when people can’t even agree on whether Donald Trump is a real person or the actual, physical spawn of Satan, how can we possibly reach a consensus on anything? Which means that whatever we do, half the country isn’t just going to be unhappy, they’ll be apoplectic.
And these days, the idea isn’t just coming from the Right. The Calexit movement would secede California from the United States entirely, and it’s more financed and organized than you might think. Perhaps it’s time to give them what they want.
“[Conservatives’ reasons for splitting] would be a major cultural shift toward the left and half the country refusing to go along with tyranny,” writes Kelly. Liberals’ reasons might be a desire to run things their own way without the adults in the room interfering. But either way, the way I see it there are three possibilities for America’s future - unrest, tyranny, or divorce.
We’re already seeing the unrest, and it’s happening on a massive scale as liberals #Resist literally every move President Trump makes.
Should these jackals eventually get their “permanent Democratic majority,” we’ll certainly see the tyranny.
Which leaves the one other option, that put forward in Kelly’s controversial piece. Sure, it won’t be this year, or this decade, or probably even in my lifetime, but its eventual inevitability seems as ‘destined’ as America’s historic expansion to the Pacific.
A couple questions:
For instance: assuming Wyoming is the state which becomes New County: would being born in Wyoming mean you are a citizen of New Country?
Who will adjucate conflicts between Indians and New Country?
There is no coexistence with some of the hardcore psychopaths on the Left.
I’m of the opinion that is inevitable as well.
People best get their minds right about it, because even though it’s not something WE want, it is in fact what THEY want.
Except they want it to be painless, and through the use of the law at all levels.
Here’s a hint: It WON’T be painless for them.
Just sayin’, allkindasortahypothetical-like and stuff...
Be a little bit more aggressive. Also who says we can’t break states apart!
All of Nevada North of las Vegas. North California and western Oregon and Washington. North California gives Pacific access.
Reporters have to be exmilitary and have to pledge to tell the unbiased truth. They have to rotate and serve with the military overseas no exceptions.
Allow each county to vote which way they want to go. Redraw the states accordingly.
I am sure an amicable solution can be found but we will need a wall between the two states.
The left can stomach plenty of violence and destruction, as long as they're opposing an unarmed, law-abiding populace. They killed 100 million people during the twentieth century.
I think they'd start out strong in a war with the right, but would soon weaken, due to engagements with a fearsome, unleashed class of patriot warrior.
Still, the carnage would be immense. We're talking sectarian warfare that would be street to street, and house to house. There'd be very few clearly defined battle lines. The horror would be unthinkable.
As you say, though, their resolve would soon crumble.
Too much of that going on the past few years. Austin is chock full of California transplants. The problem is that most of them appear to be whacked out libs.
Know someone who is considering a divorce?
Give them the book compiled by Lelila Miller of adult children of divorce. Primal Loss is the name of the book.
Powerful, for it describes the harm that divorce did to their families and to them as individuals.
Children are forgotten in divorce cases, because ‘selfish’ spouses think it’s all about them.
Use the county map and big chunks of blue states are actually red. The blue staters are actually city dwellers. Carve out Chicago and Illinois becomes red, carve out downstate New York and New York becomes red... don’t give them anything just the ground they are standing on.
A one time payment apportioned by population vs entire population of the USA at the time of the secession.
The USA pays SSI retirment benefits to it's citizens, mostly based on the continuing inflow of revenue to the SSI program. Assuming SSI contributions will not be required in the new country, do you expect SSI benefits to continue to be paid by FedGov to citizens living in New Country after the split?
"Assuming SSI contributions will not be required in the new country," which is a false assumption. The new country(formally a state) will now collect payroll taxes and distribute them. That will be in the article of secession. It's up to the people of that state to decide.
US military veterans receive healthcare via the VA. Will New State take on the care of veterans of another countries veterans (USA, that is). If so, for how long. Who will pay military pensions for US Veterans living in New Country?
The USA pays veterans that live all over the world. It would be up to them to decide if they are going to keep paying. As far as current VA benefits, the new country can decide to keep up the VA in their new country or not. My guess is they will. It is up to the people to decide.
Who will be allowed to move to New Country after the split.
I would suggest an open border period of a year to allow the deadbeat liberals to vacate red countries and vice versa. Emigration would be highly recommended.
Who will be considered a citizen of New Country after the split?
Um, the citizens of that former state.
Will it be Jus soli or jus sanguinis, or both. For instance: assuming Wyoming is the state which becomes New County: would being born in Wyoming mean you are a citizen of New Country?
Yes.
How about having two parents born in Wyoming?
Great, they are citizens of the country of Wyoming or whatever name they choose.
Will New Country honor the treaties made between Indian tribes with Fed Gov?
I guess so. Or not.
Who will adjucate conflicts between Indians and New Country?
The President (former Governor) of the new country.
If you look at the bluestaters as Zombies the county map makes more sense. The US should quarantine those blue zones until reeducation facilities can be established, some I’m afraid are too far gone!
Expulsion, like a bit eject the blue counties that are being used as sanctuaries for illegals and tools for massive election fraud. The blue staters don’t get their own country either.
I disagree with your premise. They are not intermingled. And conservatives and progressives are not similar.
The Redstaters would then set the prices for food water electricity and consumer goods. Transportation from one blue zone to another requires paying tolls. No we are not giving the blues a free ride.
Thanks for answering my questions. And they were pretty good answers, for the most part.
Again who says that Seattle gets the whole state. Seattle gets expulsed and the remainder stays Washington, a red state.
As I see it there is no new country, it is still the good ol USA. The blue counties are expulsed by the US for violating federal law, for sedition and as a threat to the US Constitution. Counties will vote to reaffirm their allegiance to the Constitution and the federal government. Counties that vote against will be expulsed unless of strategic importance. People in the wrong county are given a reasonable amount of time to relocate.
Yes and they unfortunately will vote for more of what they left behind.
Liberals should have to live with what they vote for which brings us to “divorce” and our desperate need to rid ourselves of them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.