Posted on 10/22/2008 9:25:20 AM PDT by Jack Black
I've lived through some turbulent years of American history, but I have never seen our country more polarized, more divided, more ripe for – dare I say it? – breakup, dissolution, a secessionist movement. I admit I'm unafraid of radical ideas – if those radical ideas are just, righteous, moral and godly. I believe it's time for radical ideas – just as it was time in 1776. Frankly, I don't see a way to unite a people as divided as Americans are today. We are trying to pretend we're one nation when we are really two. One of those two nations clings to the promises and covenants of the past, the Bible, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, as the guiding principles. The other believes in and lives with no immutable standards. It's not a Republican vs. Democrat split – as the current election illustrates. I know many Republicans would find themselves more comfortable in the country of no standards. I also suspect many Democrats would actually find themselves more at home in the nation of the Bible, Declaration and Constitution. Isn't it time for separation? Is the breakup of the union really such a difficult thing to consider?
Isn't it time for separation? Is the breakup of the union really such a difficult thing to consider? When there are no new lands to discover, what choice do we have?
....
There's only one way to recapture the greatness of America. That is to start over – with only those willing to play by the rules. Let those who don't believe in rules have their own country to destroy.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Nobody’s saying they can’t. I personally think we’d be better focusing on one state to start with and letting it be a magnet for patriots.
And I think Texas is by far the best place to do that.
Someone’s already kind of doing that (with a libertarian streak)-The Free State Project is focusing currently on NH because of it’s relatively low population.
Great advice. I will follow it from now on and encourage others to as well.
.jpg)
Book Two: Five years later things have broken down all over and the SouthWest, particularly New Mexico is in the hands of the Aztlan seperatists. Very Brave New World kind of depiction of PC and aggressive pro-Hispanic beliefs running rabid.
The web site is HERE
Book One: In which FedGov agents over-reach in attempting to use a "Columbine Incident" to ban most guns, and the resulting backlash - all from the point of view of two very sympathetic and well drawn characters.
Book Two: Five years later things have broken down all over and the SouthWest, particularly New Mexico is in the hands of the Aztlan seperatists. Very Brave New World kind of depiction of PC and aggressive pro-Hispanic beliefs running rabid.
The web site is HERE
The original analysis behind the FSP is really interesting and still available on their web site, linked off the logo below:
The basic idea was that a realtively small number of people moving somewhere could really transform the political climate in a state. The bigger the state the less possible it is that you can get enough people to move somewhere that it's going to make a difference.
The problem with Texas is that it's still 50% Democratic. And it has huge urban minority populations, tons of illegals, the entire Austin libtard colony. Thus any attempt to rally the whole state to start acting more like a sovereign state is likely to fail.
The alternative suggested in the wake of the FSP memeber election of New Hampshire was a new movement based on Wyoming.
Wyoming has the twin advantages of being the smallest population state in the lower 48 and also already having a very strong Conservative mindset, as reflected in the strong support that Conservatives and Republcans get in the state.
The FSW has a much looser organization than the FSP. Many have said it reflects "western libertarianism" instead of "eastern libertarianism", meaning less bookish, less atheist, more of the organic cowboy code of "live and let live".
Anyway, the FSW Forum is a good place to learn about their ideas:
They have already made some nice coins: 
Oh, yeah, the founder of FSW is 'Boston T. Party' the author of Boston's Gun Bible and the secessionist novel Molon Labe
Imagine trying to have that impact in Texas, with almost 4.5 million voters.
Perry polled 2,632,591 votes (57.80 percent) to Sanchez's 1,819,798 (39.96 percent).
All this means is that Texas's secession or rebellion will have to be organic, not imported, I suppose.
ALaska would be a better free state- its got all the resources, sea ports and room we need. Great governor, too.
I would think it would have to be both. But you're right, a massive migration would be required.
Considering what we'd be facing under absolute Marxist control, such a massive migration wouldn't be that far-fetched. This is historical precedent for this sort of thing.
You know that would change the moment red states are out with their own low tax plan whereas the tax rates are going to double for the residents of blue state!
That is just the nature of the beast. :)
Can we have Alaska, please, please, please ?
Is true or a myth that Texas has the right to secede?
The War of Independence (Revolutionary War) also was brother against brother with the population split into thirds: one third indifferent, one third against (Tory) and one third FOR revolt. Many of the Tories emigrated to Canada during and after the war.
It’s not possible to divide the country, since the split is more urban-rural than regional. Imagine the split between India and Pakistan, which was really enforced ethnic and religious cleansing that led to millions of deaths. Even if a regional split was the end point, tens of millions of folks “in the wrong region” would have to move, and it would be happening in the midst of a CW. Very ugly.
Thanks for the ping. In my new book I was going to delve into how the Northwest could split apart and succeed, but the plot went elsewhere. The Northwest could only make it if they could take key ports in Washington state and BC, and then reach independent trade agreements with Asian countries. THis seems pretty implausible to me, since Washington is a very liberal state overall, or at least in the key port cities.
My understanding -- and I could very well be wrong on this -- is that Texas has the right to divide itself into 10 (?) separate states.
But that's something I've only heard, never read. Hopefully, somebody here is better able to answer the question. I'm curious about the answer myself.
Theoretically, we're supposed to be 50 (57 depending on who you ask). If you look at the usage and context of the word "State" prior to the U.S. it was synonymous with "country," while "nation" had a more ethno-linguistic connotation. As KeyesPlease noted, this was the original intent behind Federalism. The Civil War and Reconstruction allowed for some encroachment upon, and undermining of this concept by the FedGov, but nothing like the 17th Amendment. Had it not been for that Amendment, Obama would have never risen above community organizer.
Just America and we keep the flag. They can just use their Che flags or something like it. ;)
Or "be moved."
IMHO, this nation was meant to be as “one nation under God” as Israel is (including the southern portion known as Judah).
We are separated from most of the rest of the world by two oceans. If we were to divide, each of those opposing nations would, in all probability, be in constant agitation from the other.
We must trust in God, and fight to regain the principles on which this land was founded. Although there may be some shame in this country’s early growth, there were also sacrifices made in Israel to cleanse the land of idolatry and hatred.
We ain’t perfect, but God’s Word has helped us to establish true freedom. We must not let that freedom slip away.
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.