Posted on 04/22/2009 7:12:17 AM PDT by AmericanHunter
When Texas Gov. Rick Perry floated the idea of secession if the federal government continues to pursue an aggressive tax-and-spend policy, the mainstream media, as well as the political establishment, cringed.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called talk of secession “whack-job stuff,” calling Mr. Perry a “bozo” and telling the Texas governor, “You don’t have a choice buddy.” Mr. Matthews’ colleague, Rachael Maddow, said Mr. Perry was “flirting to the point of adultery” by talking about secession, while commentator Thomas Frank reinforced the disconnect between the media and many Americans.
“What you’re seeing … what is one of the surprising things about these tea parties … surprising to people like you and me, is how mainstream extremism is in the Republican Party and the conservative movement,” Mr. Frank, author of Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, told Ms. Maddow.
But is the idea of secession a foreign concept to the American experience? Is talk of secession automatically treasonous? Is any secessionist movement doomed to be defined by the Civil War and exiled to the political wilderness?
“I think the biggest surprise to me was the outrage expressed by an individual who even thinks ... along these lines,” U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, said yesterday on CNN’s American Morning.
“Because I heard people say, well, ‘this was treason,’ they say, and ‘this was un-American.’ But don’t they remember how we came in to our being? We used secession. We seceded from England. So it’s a very good principle. It’s a principle of a free society. It’s a shame we don’t have it anymore.”
Dr. Paul, who ran a hard fought grassroots campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, argued the principle of secession is one that protects the union rather than threatens it.
“I argue that if you have the principle of secession, our federal government wouldn’t be as intrusive into state affairs. And to me, that would be very good,” Dr. Paul said. “We as a nation have endorsed secession all along. I mean, think of all the secession of the countries and the Republicans from the Soviet system. We were delighted. We love it. And yet we get hysterical over this.”
Critics of the coverage of the secession comment argue the media is trying to paint the Republican Party as extreme. They say Mr. Perry was not advocating secession, but rather saying the federal government could cause its resurrection.
“We got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?” Mr. Perry asked.
While the notion of secession was floated by Mr. Perry, he was not expressly advocating Texas leave the Union. Rather, the Texas governor used the idea in a manner Dr. Paul believes is historically accurate — to send a warning shot across the bow of a federal government that is encroaching on state’s rights and individual liberties.
Last week’s tea parties exposed a major rift in the country, and some are concerned the Obama administration does not understand the degree of dissent that is fomenting outside the Beltway. And despite panning by the political establishment, the majority of the nation viewed tea party dissent in a favorable light.
Fifty-one percent of Americans had a favorable view of the nationwide rallies, while 32 percent responded their view was very favorable, according to a poll released by Rasmussen Reports. A third of the nation had an unfavorable view with 15 percent unsure.
But among the nation’s “Political Class,” Rasmussen found just 13 percent held a favorable assessment and zero percent held a very favorable view of the nationwide protest. This disconnect, according to Dr. Paul, is a major part of the problem.
“People are angry. And if we don’t sense that, we don’t know it’s actually what’s going on there,” the Texas congressman said. Dr. Paul said the worst is yet to come because secession will achieve a greater legitimacy as the country struggles.
“When the dollar collapses and the federal government can’t fulfill any of its promises, what if they send you dollars and they don’t work,” Dr. Paul said. “People are just going to — they’re not going to have a violent cessation. They’re just going to ignore the federal government because they will be inept.”
Well, stand watie, I’m glad to have met you here and I’ll have to be going — to do some “worldly things” like shopping and stuff... :-)
Talk to you later...
And about 40 million pale folks who are whacked-out commies I wouldn't want in my country.
Okay, I was just going to run out the door, but this one stopped me. After this, some worldly things call... LOL...
You said — Will they still want USA government handouts? Or do they really want to be independent?
—
They want to be totally independent and functioning a sovereign nation, within their own borders, their own passports, their own laws, their own economy and a functionally independent country where you have borders and you have to present passports and stuff to cross the borders.
And there would be no connection with anything having to do with the United States or its government or its Congress or anything at all with the U.S.
The people who wished to remain there, could become citizens of the Republic of Lakotah.
We’re talking about a *completely separate* and independent nation...
i do NOT know about how quickly SOME of the smaller/poorer Nations would do, but The Tsalagi Nvdagi Nation would do FINE, thank you very much, SEPARATED & FREE.
as i said earlier, we "get along fine" with all four states (where our enrollees are resident) primarily because they mostly LEAVE US ALONE to our own PRIVATE pursuits.
the state of Texas has said that the state would "fiercely oppose" us opening "gambling halls".- our tribe's response was that we do NOT foresee EVER wanting/opening a casino (it's NOT "a fit" for us.), though we WILL eventually open a Quarter-horse/Greyhound race track (with parimutuel wagering, thereon), a hotel & a nice restaurant, just off the highway from Dallas to Shreveport, LA. this facility will allow us FULL EMPLOYMENT for every enrollee, who wishes full-time/part-time employment.
profits from our track/hotel/restaurant will be used to fund our planned TEXAS INDIAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE.= we eventually HOPE to offer FREE tuition/fees/books to all the children of the Nation & perhaps to other needy natives (to the Kickapoos, Alabama-Coushattas & Tiguas, FIRST as they are our near neighbors.).
free dixie,sw
Frankly, the United States face a far graver danger, to our nation as a whole and perhaps to many of those individual citizens who value freedom, than the issues facing the Lakotah. Free people don't need the precedent, nor is it relevant. I believe the federal government should do the right thing with the Lakotah, although I don't have time to figure out what that right thing is. I am far more concerned that freedom must survive the dangers of the next 4-8 years under a neo-socialist.
Can Texas secede? Of course, if the people of Texas so choose, and they don't need a precedent to do so. The Constitution gives them that power. Can the federal government stop that secession? Not under the law, but perhaps by force of arms ... perhaps not. We don't know how much practical authority Obama would actually have if he ordered his soldiers to attack the peaceful, law-abiding civilians in Texas, Idaho, Utah, or another state. I am not pleased by much that involves Obama, but I am pleased at the thought of him worrying over whether our soldiers would follow an unlawful order.
BUMP!
i don't get to see them as often as i would like. my various business pursuits, taking care of elders in the family,seeing about the family farm, etc. take all my time, right now.
free dixie,sw
I would opine that every parasite that sucks and lives off the blood [money stolen]from the tax payer does.
I am 100% in favor of supporting those who are physically unable to provide for themselves. But from my experience this is not what I have seen. Thise who need it cannot get it and those that do not need it can easily get it.
As the old saying goes,” Anytime you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support”.
At least one, me.
Provided that they would need visas and the permission of adjacent states to visit USA territory.
No foreign (USA) aid whatsoever, in any form.
Acknowledgement that should they invite Cubans, Mexicans or Venezuelans to infiltrate the sovereign United States from their territory, it would expose them to attack.
I can deal with that.
Thanks for taking the time to answer. Do you know, do they want to remove other citizens from that land to make it a ‘Lakota’ republic?
Would you care to expand on that?
Last time I checked, the Constitution requires revenue and spending bills to originate in Congress...
Incidentally, it is assumed (!) that Congress would be criminally liable (high crimes and misdemeanors?) for passing laws that bankrupt the country without having read the bills, or allowing the opposing party the opportunity to do so.
Just saying.
fwiw, i favor "womb to grave" FULL ,life-long, support for EVERYONE who CANNOT take care of themselves, partial support to those who need SOME assistance to live (as in aid to the blind,the infirm elderly,the wheelchair-bound, multi-handicapped, etc.) BUT NOTHING whatever for those who COULD support themselves & CHOOSE NOT TO.
free dixie,sw
I don't say this often, but this is an exception.
You are an idiot.
The Lakota were never members of the union, in the same sense as, say, Texas.
That's my final comment on that thread hijacking "argument."
The point is that rather than whooping it up about secession, something that is not likely happen in the short to medium term at best - we need to be “raising the consciousness” of Texans, including many conservatives, who all to often are easily manipulated by liberals into supporting socialism on a retail basis.
further, the Sioux are not STUPID. they want investment in their "new nation" & FRIENDLY relations with the states/USA.
free dixie,sw
I never said it was.
-----
So, when someone goes along the road at 50 MPH, and a “former government official” — a state trooper, stops the driver, does the “new official” come along and confront the “old official” (that state trooper) and tell him to “get lost” — or what? LOL...
No. The new governmental official tells the old governmental official that he is out of his jurisdiction.
If the old governmental official persists, he can be arrested for acting under color of authority....or impersonating a legitimate official.
----
What you suggest is something that *does not work* in reality... You just don’t tell all those “institutions” to “pack it up and leave by tomorrow” — they just won’t do it and they’ll keep right on doing what they’ve been doing for years...
Like I said, deal with the States first. All legitimate civil authority comes from there. If the States agree, the federal government has no say so. If the States don't agree, the Lakota need to get elected to the State legislatures and pressure them until they do.
------
Look, there is no magically easy answer to the Lakota Nation's dilemma. You asked a question as a side issue to the thread, and I gave my opinion. Sorry if it doesn't satisfy you.
This premise is no longer true. Your denial does not change this fact.
The Constitution is clear on the importance of treaties, they are the highest law of the land, but must still adhere to the Constitution itself.
This is all pretty internally consistent if you think about it for a few minutes.
Leftists love to use the argument you just used. "Treaties are a higher law then the Constitution". So Barrack just signed a "Universal Prohibition on Civilian Ownership of Small Arms UN Treaty", Harry Reid's Senate passed it, so no more second Ammendment. That makes no sense. Would the founders have made it supremely difficult to modify the Constitution itself only to allow treaties to accomplish the same goal.
Again the high barriers to Constitutional Ammendment vs. the relatively easy path for treaties shows which the founders considered superior.
Finally treaties can, and are, unilaterally aborgated. That's sort of the nature of a treaty: We both agree on X. If, at some point party A does not agree with X they can ignore or formally abrogate the treaty. The USA unilaterlly abrogated the ABM Treaty when we decided the world was too dangerous for us to forego Anti Ballistic Missle development. We judge that the tattered Soviet Union could do nothing significant to protest our abrogation. Many other treaties have been aborgated
The American treaties with the Indians have not been abrogated, they have been ignored. That's common too.
Thanks.
Be sure and catch next week’s show of We Shall Remain, PBS, April 27, it will be the “Trail of Tears” about Ridge, Watie, Etc. Should be interesting.
Huh? There wouldn't be an "United" States would there? The 50 states would start wrangling among themselves over issues like water rights and who gets to keep the nukes. Every state will demand an equal share of them! Would Blue States be happy if Red States had a lion's share of the military or vice versa? It will be chaos.
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.