Dispatches from the Culture Wars

Maybe he'll cancel the revolution if we revert to having one member of the House of Representatives from each state, just like the founders intended.

Putz.

Posted by: Mr. Upright | March 10, 2009 9:52 AM

Ed,

Poeple in Texas have talking about secession for a long time. LOL! We did seceed once during the Civil War. It didn't do us a hell of a lot good, either.

GE

Posted by: Guitar Eddier | March 10, 2009 10:13 AM

or will history need to record a second American Revolution?

What? Texas? Seriously? Alone? Will the entire TX National Guard follow the rebellion or will some units/individuals remain loyal to Palpatine?

Chuck does realize, right, that the U.S. Government's initial response to something like that is quite likely to be a SOCOM simulcast:

Special Forces ODA infills in conjunction with a Ranger/D-Boy airborne insertion with the Ready Brigade of the 82nd Airborne as follow on. Other units on deck warming up. Oh yeah--and SEALs dropping onto the Gulf Coast somewhere doing SEAL shit so they can be part of it.

Good luck with that, Chuck.

Posted by: Josh | March 10, 2009 10:21 AM

I knew a lot of people who bemoaned the Bush administration, and sometimes they would talk about taking drastic measures: they were thinking of moving to ____ (Canada, France, New Zealand, etc.) Not once, in all the Republican bashing, did I hear anyone I knew advocate taking up arms, grabbing a chunk of land, and seceding from the Union.

Maybe a different kind of mindset, or something.

Posted by: Sastra | March 10, 2009 10:36 AM

If Texas does secede, I can see Chuck doing live broadcasts from the Alamo (with his stunt double doing the actual fight scenes).

Posted by: Romeo Vitelli | March 10, 2009 10:45 AM

I was under the impression that sedition--advocating the violent overthrow of the US government--is illegal. It's not covered by the 1st Amendment. Chuck isn't the first whackaloon to suggest this in the last month. Why aren't they getting frantic phone calls from their lawyers telling them to shut the fuck up?

Posted by: Susan Brassfield Cogan | March 10, 2009 10:54 AM

I knew a lot of people who bemoaned the Bush administration, and sometimes they would talk about taking drastic measures: they were thinking of moving to ____ (Canada, France, New Zealand, etc.) Not once, in all the Republican bashing, did I hear anyone I knew advocate taking up arms, grabbing a chunk of land, and seceding from the Union.

Maybe a different kind of mindset, or something.

I did hear plenty of "you know, if they don't like the fancy-pants liberal educated athiest free-lovin' gay-marryin' parts of the country, maybe we should take them and leave. The West and Northeast Coasts can form their own country and leave the South and middle to their own devices." But that was more of a "maybe we should let the idiots secede and cut them loose..." than a call to secession.

Posted by: Morgan | March 10, 2009 11:01 AM

If Mr Norris runs for President of Texas I will fight him any way I can.

I'll start with a strafing mission carried out by scar-faced Mexican looking bad guys with Uzi's shooting from a chopped and channeled Chevy Nova with bald tires.

If he don't drop out of the race, then I is going to escalate manners by fire bombing his Vietnamese friend's corner grocery which is killing the son too. And then we sees Mr Tough guy doin' the right thing and quittin' like a dog. He he.

Ok, I sees the Lone Wolf ain't got no quit in him. Half my boys are dead or maimed now. Mr Norris, I got your wife and daughter kidnapped and slightly tortured now at my Secret Location. Now, you drop out or... damn - what's that shooting? He's here! Damn, he's so fast.... I'm falling down elevator shaft onto steel spikes. Arrgghh - nobody can stop Norris!

Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 10, 2009 11:15 AM

Actually there are several sites out there associating it with Henry. Wikipedia's "quotes" site lists it as unsourced. Even "sourced" sites keep coming up with stuff like "sourced from an email" - in short, there's no real citation for it at all.

Posted by: Joe Shelby | March 10, 2009 11:20 AM

Somehow all this chat reminds me of dystopian cyberpunk futures where the states are always breaking up in places like California Free State, Allied States of America, Greater Texas and even JesusLand.

Posted by: Chiarosuro | March 10, 2009 11:33 AM

I think Chuck has read all the "Chuck Norris" jokes on the internet and decided that they are actually true, and they apply to his intellectual prowess as well.

Posted by: Taz | March 10, 2009 11:42 AM

Bonus -- if they secede, their NFL teams go with 'em.

Rt

Posted by: Roadtripper | March 10, 2009 11:44 AM

Ginger - for a (substantial) fee I'll even lease you the Kurnell Peninsula for the filming (with Chuckie's stunt-double) the climatic desert confrontation between good and evil in this apocalyptic free-Texas epic. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | March 10, 2009 11:52 AM

Is a state seceding actually illegal?

By violent means against the will of the states electors, that is of course illegal.

But if a state voted to secede would it be allowed to or is the idea of indidual states just a pretense nowadays?

Posted by: Chris' Wills | March 10, 2009 11:55 AM

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, Texas! Seriously, I'm all for it! Hell, I'd even throw in Louisiana and New Mexico to sweeten the deal, provided they agree to one thing: that cover half the costs of a program to help us relocate "ours" to more civilized lands (can we load up all of Austin on one big transport?), and they have an open immigration policy from the U.S. for at least four years. That way, every time some mouth-breather starts in on "liburals ruinin the cuntry", we can point them to the border.

Mmm... it DOES feel good to be on THIS side of the "if you don't like America, get the hell out!" speech.

Posted by: David | March 10, 2009 12:03 PM

Beck : Norris
mutual sychophants.
I can never tell when Beck is not being an absurd satirical comedian or when Norris leaves the character Walker.

That they have a national stage is absurd beyond this little fish's belief.

Posted by: Sardine | March 10, 2009 12:11 PM

nal, It wasn't treason in 1861 and it isn't treason now. The Constitution has an extremely narrow definition of treason and this doesn't fit it.

I'm more amused that this is coming from the same segment of the political spectrum that claimed that criticism of Presidential policies was traitorous. Now that they aren't in charge, it is ok to call for revolt?

Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | March 10, 2009 12:15 PM

Chris' Wills: Is a state seceding actually illegal?

Not if they're successful. :D

Posted by: Chiroptera | March 10, 2009 12:22 PM

Why would Chuck Norris want to start a new country for? I thought this one was founded by Jesus!

Posted by: 386sx | March 10, 2009 12:25 PM

386sx,

Actually, it was Norris who was founded by Jesus -- For when Jesus saw Chuck's head, he said, "On this rock, I will found my church".

Posted by: Paul Sunstone | March 10, 2009 12:33 PM

These guys are truly amazing. The Bush administration had federal agents classify anti-war groups as "terrorist cells," violated their rights, went through their records, rampaged through their offices, etc., simply for arguing against the war in Iraq. Chuck here is calling for the establishment of resistance cells in preparation for a rebellion. But the anti-war protesters were anti-American while he is a patriot.

Un-be-fucking-lievable

Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2009 12:39 PM

Of course Walker/Norris is upset about US aid to Palestinians; they are the wrong side of Armageddon. Perhaps when he is King of Texas he can pass a law making the Rapture come in 2010.

Posted by: mark | March 10, 2009 12:55 PM

Sardine:

"Beck : Norris
mutual sychophants.
I can never tell when Beck is not being an absurd satirical comedian or when Norris leaves the character Walker."

1.) Beck is absurd. I doubt that it's satire. He's as funny as colon cancer--which I would be happy to hear he had.

2.) Norris? never.

Posted by: democommie | March 10, 2009 1:10 PM

I’m well familiar with the lure of revolution. To struggle valiantly for a just cause against an monolithic enemy, to be a champion of freedom against the forces of oppression, to be a hero, a savior, for those too foolish, frightened or corrupt to do the right thing, it’s all terribly alluring. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that? It’s just so damn exciting and a little bit sexy to boot.

When I was a kid the movie Red Dawn was a huge event in my little corner of the playground. My friends and I spent countless hours discussing various scenarios. At sleepovers we’d entertain ourselves by spinning tales of invasion, survival, and resistance. All-important in the tale was who we’d save if we could. We were the leaders of the resistance. We decided who was under our protection (loyal friends, kids with useful skills, and several cheerleaders) and who would be up against the wall (everyone else, especially that teacher who gave me detention). We had the power to remake things the way we wanted them.

It was a magnificent fantasy for a young mid-western boy, a dream of freedom, triumph, power and romance. The thing is, I grew up. I came to see revolution for what it was, war. It’s a bloody, destructive, and terrible thing, a last resort to be considered only in the direst of circumstances. So, to folks like Chuck Norris, who so casually spins visions of glorious revolution, I say to you the time has long passed to put away your childish fantasies. It’s time to be a grown up and work together with the rest of us to bring about real world progress. Do that and save your President of Texas yarns for your next slumber party. Deal?

Posted by: Abby Normal | March 10, 2009 1:20 PM

Norris would declare Austin to be a "liberal homeland" -- still part of Texas, but a place where liberals can be moved to so that they no longer pollute the lifestyle of the true conservatives and Christians in the rest of the state.

That would be fine. Maybe people who live on the outskirts can smoke pot and own guns.

I've run into Chuck Norris in Dallas twice now, actually...if I see him again I'll have a hard time not laughing at him.

Posted by: Gretchen | March 10, 2009 1:36 PM

Josh:

It's just a shame that your "fort" has a more sordid, recent history.

It's thanks to guys like you that the DorkLordCheney had so many "undisclosed locations" to choose from when he just wanted to sit back, kick off his jackboots, put his feet up and drink a nice frothy infantahemolatte.

Posted by: democommie | March 10, 2009 1:44 PM

Oh, come on everybody! President of Texas is Chuck's birthday present to himself. Thought he is 69, maybe it's senility brought on by too many kicks to the head?

(And don't take Texas, there are ... 8 people there I like!)

Posted by: JustaTech | March 10, 2009 1:59 PM

"Is seccesion legal?"

The Articles of Confederation (our "first constitution") had an article asserting that "Each state retains its full sovereignty and independence." Each state in those years had an absolute right to secede from the union (and the union was, in fact, just a confederation and not itself a country--the states were the countries; c.f. the Declaration of Independence which declares that "these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states"--note the plural).

The Constitution, by contrast, makes no statement about sovereignty and independence, neither to reaffirm it or to deny it. The absence is not properly understood as a denial--the issue was deliberately obfuscated so as to build support among the states for the Constitution. In the early years there was in fact no clear answer as to whether the United States were still a confederation of countries or a unified country. The Preamble of the Constitution says, "to form a more perfect union," but that doesn't help--they already had a union, so what exactly did "more perfect" mean? It's too vague to be meaningful.

Keep in mind also that Article VII of the Constitution reads, "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same." It was clearly understood that not every state might join, and in fact North Carolina and Rhode Island did not join until after the new government was already in place--Washington was executing and the Congress was legislating for an 11 state union.

Because joining was voluntary, it's reasonable (at least at that time) to assume that seceding was also voluntary. How many voluntary organizations do you belong to that you are not allowed to personally secede from? It's a rather unprecedented concept that once you join you can't quit (well, not quite unprecedented--that's how the Catholic church views marriage, but you can see how seriously we all take permanence in that case).

The strongest argument against the legality of secession is the lack of an article specifying how to secede. Were I on the Supreme Court, now that wer'e 200+ years down the road, that's the argument I'd probably use in passing judgement on the issue. But keep in mind that the Federal Convention were trying to finesse those issues--they weren't a bunch of unusually brilliant men objectively evaluating what would be the ideal structure, but smart political men getting as much as they could out of the design in the face of the inevitable compromises. Hamilton for sure would have liked a no-secession clause, but there isn't one.

So secession in 1861 was not treasonous. It was a test of a poorly defined principle. And our understanding of the illegality of secession today comes from the North's victory--in other words, we implicitly accept the idea that might makes right.

The question is just not as simplistic as some make it out to be.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 10, 2009 2:19 PM

James Hanley:

"How many voluntary organizations do you belong to that you are not allowed to personally secede from?"

It's obvious you've never met Vito Corleone.

Posted by: democommie | March 10, 2009 2:25 PM

Don't forget 1st Cav and 4th Infantry right there in the middle of the state at Fort Hood. Less than 60 miles from Austin.

Even though they're geographically close, since the 4th ID isn't part of USASOC or the XVIII Airborne Corps, I doubt that they could go wheels up fast enough to play a major role in this situation. I figure 1st Cav would have been one of the "units on deck." I could be wrong, but I was thinking that the government's response to such an event would be fast. Aside from whichever brigade of the 82nd would be on RRF1 at the time, I can't think of any units that could put a brigade down range fast enough to be really involved. Again, though, I could be wrong.

Posted by: Josh | March 10, 2009 2:33 PM

James,

I wouldn't say it was simplistic, but it isn't quite as gray as southern apologists would like us to believe. As I said, there are statements recorded by the founding fathers that establish that their idea was that the union was permanent from the very beginning. Similar statements continue after ratification with Washington, Jefferson, and Jackson (among others) making major statements addressing the question for decades leading up to the Civil War. In each and every case the position expressed is that of a permanent union.

The most interesting thing about the various secession crisis is that in each case you have what amounts to petulant children who aren't getting their way whining about leaving and creating their own country. New England in the War of 1812, South Carolina, etc., in the nullification crisis, the slave states in the Civil War, and today's Neo-Con movement. They don't get to run the show anymore, so these "great patriots" want to leave the country, or overthrow the government, etc.

Truly a charming mentality.

Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2009 2:38 PM

dogmeatib,

there are statements recorded by the founding fathers that establish that their idea was that the union was permanent from the very beginning.

The most interesting thing about the various secession crisis is that in each case you have what amounts to petulant children who aren't getting their way whining about leaving and creating their own country. New England in the War of 1812, South Carolina, etc....

Any restriction on self-determination puts the lie to our claims of believing in freedom and democracy, because it means our continued "brotherhood" is based on force, not desire (just like, as democommie notes, the mob--now there's a great model to follow!).

Posted by: James Hanley | March 10, 2009 2:52 PM

Good. When Texas secedes, I envision a mass emigration of:

Steers, Queers, and Bioengineers!

Posted by: JimNorth | March 10, 2009 3:11 PM

OK, maybe it's unconstitutional for Texas to secede. How about maybe it's constitutional for the rest of us to evict Texas? How would that work, exactly?

Posted by: william e emba | March 10, 2009 3:39 PM

This reminds me of one of those Chuck Norris jokes:

Behind Chuck Norris's beard there is no chin - there is only another fist right-wing nutjob.

Posted by: brokenSoldier | March 10, 2009 4:01 PM

Well, bite my alligator testicles. I do belive we've got a Norris conspiracy site. (Fascinating that your even giving him the time of day!!) Still I'd bet $1 million at Vegas that Edward's biggest-hit blogs have been with Chucky's name on it (a probability statistic as to why he really repeatedly fancies him). And I bet one of Chuck's columns gets 100x what Edward gets in a year of his. Hell, you all are too brilliant for the rest of us southerners anyway. I think I'm going huntin', then I'll find Sarah Palin and see if we can't go ice fishin.' So glad character and manners aren't valued anymore, otherwise your pride, arrogance and antgonism would be seen as a negative! Whew! Praise the Lord and pass the biscuits! LOL Dumb asses are laughing all the way to the bank as you bite Norrises right one by giving all this press to him. Don't you get it??!?? Should probably say, excellent cherry picking in overlooking Norrises other Founding Father entries:

"Thomas Jefferson counseled us, "We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." Yet the Feds have just skyrocketed our national deficit and debt by trillions of dollars, and it plans much more fiscal expansion with few expectations of resistance. Despite that George Washington admonished, "To contract new debts is not the way to pay for old ones," we keep borrowing and bailing, while we watch the stock market plunge further every time we do.

John Adams declared that, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." Yet we've bastardized the First Amendment, reinterpreted America's religious history and secularized our society until we ooze skepticism and circumvent religion on every level of public and private life."

Bush sucked, and your furor Obama is even worse. But who cares, cause what's important is winning an intellectual non-dialogue on a blog that is here today and gone tomorrow with a bunch of neocons, RINOS, and gun-slinging conservatives!!! Yippee! Yahoooooo!! Ride em cowboy!!

Sure glad I've found this site and seen the light! I guess I'm going to move to California now!! LOL Thanks for the laugh today. I needed it.

Posted by: Gringo Tejan | March 10, 2009 4:20 PM

It may be an urban legend, but I recall reading that when Texas was admitted to the Union, they got a provision saying they could leave again if they wanted to (the only such state ever to get such a provision). So maybe they actually could legally leave.

Also, given that Austin is the capital of Texas, wouldn't making it a sort of liberal concentration camp be an uncomfortable situation for Emperor Norris?

Posted by: Dave | March 10, 2009 4:59 PM

Dave,

No, it actually doesn't say that in the Texas Constitution. If you look it up you'll generally see people interpreting broad statements about the will of the people followed by quotes of the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2009 5:18 PM

As I was looking through the variety of resources available concerning secession, I found a charming little site:

http://www.texassecede.com/

Their blog is equally fun:

http://texassecede.blogspot.com/

Both are quite eye opening. The combination of revisionist history, massive blinders, and hypocrisy makes you wonder how they can manage to keep it all straight in their heads let alone write about it.

Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2009 5:27 PM

But James, I would argue that the supremacy clause functions in much the same role. With the constitution and federal laws established as the supreme law of the land, a decision by a state to secede, if the federal government objected, would be null.

Posted by: dogmeatib | March 10, 2009 5:46 PM

So does vetoing secession fit within those authorized powers?

Commerce clause, obviously.

Posted by: william e emba | March 10, 2009 7:06 PM

Um, am I reading that article wrong, or does it give the impression that Glenn Beck will be hosting a rally to support revolution against the gov't on Friday on a major US "news" network?

I know Fox is bad and all, but you'd think they would at least restrain some of the Beck craziness.

Posted by: Hume's Ghost | March 10, 2009 7:46 PM

Robert Snyder: After 8 years with Bush, you chose only now to be concerned about the government "over-stepping their boundries (sic)"?

Unless you just woke up after a rather long nap, that's just fucking hilarious....

Posted by: Ernst Hot | March 10, 2009 8:08 PM

Ernat Hot:

I don't think Robert Snyder is awake, yet--he's Rip Van Whanker.

Gringo Tejan:

"Bush sucked, and your furor Obama is even worse.", "furor"?, that's the problem with relying on spellcheck; if you're already a moron, it just adds a layer of teh stupid.

Posted by: democommie | March 10, 2009 8:41 PM

In any event, they could surely be ready quicker than your average Guard unit.

Absolutely, except for the Guard USASOC units. Again, I could be wrong, but given that I've been in the Army a long fucking time now, I was just doubtful that that a division would be able to put combat force on the ground in the same state in a quick time frame, unless it was a division that was organized to deploy rapidly. Most, including the 3rdID, aren't. It's not that they couldn't physically get Bradleys on target fast enough, it's that the Army beurocracy wouldn't let it happen, I don't think. Too many boxes on too many checklists to get checked.

Posted by: Josh | March 10, 2009 9:13 PM

For those arguing about whether secession would be "legal" or "illegal" - what about 1776? Was it "legal" for us to secede in 1776? As far as I can tell, no. But, we won that war, so we got to be legitimate. The South lost their war, so they're not legitimate. "Legality" seems an irrelevant issue when it comes to secession. You win or you lose.

Posted by: Paper Hand | March 10, 2009 9:37 PM

Abby wrote:

When I was a kid the movie Red Dawn was a huge event in my little corner of the playground.

I was going to pile on to the Rob Snyder post, but when I was scrolling back up to it this caught my eye and distracted me.

I watched this one day in the 3rd grade when I was playing hooky from school and there was no one around to turn the channel. It freaking terrified me. Even more than Gargoyles did. Patrick Swayze still terrifies me.

Posted by: Leni | March 11, 2009 12:06 AM

Mexico welcomes Texas leaving the Union.

On its own two feet the high tech industries and oil fields would be of great benefit. Enough that the Union may indeed have to go scorched earth pre-emptively.

The pro-rata troops left in state (about 100,000) may or may not be able to hold off an invasion.

Posted by: Veltyen | March 11, 2009 2:13 AM

Any truth to the rumour that Chucky has to pull his pants down to count to 21.Snyder and Gringo only get to 20.5

Insulting people is not usually my style, but I'm happy to make an exception in the case of morons,because reason has no effect.

Posted by: wobert | March 11, 2009 4:37 AM

Without Texas, the US government would loose about 1/3 of it's revenue.

With about 8% of U.S. GDP(Texas gross state product of 1.09 trillion / U.S. GDP of 13.84 trillion), Texas provides 1/3 of federal revenue?

U.S. revenue is on the order of 2.7 trillion, so Texas provided about 800 billion (73% of its gross state product!) in federal revenue?

I know it's pointless to argue with people like Robert Snyder, but I thought the sane folks here might like to know just how crazy his claims are.

Posted by: James Hanley | March 11, 2009 9:50 AM

I ued to delight in reminding my 'southron' students, many of which came from Texas, both when I was teaching at LSU andwhen I was teaching at U of Okla, that the Alamo--far fom being a battle for 'freedom and liberty'--was fought to maintain slavery in Texas. The only man alive inside the Alamo on March 7, 1836, who had been inside the Alamo on the morning of March 6, 1836, when the Mexican buglers sounded "deguello," was Travis' slave. SO it is not untrue to the facts to describe the conquest of the Alamo as a rescue mission...

Posted by: woody | March 11, 2009 12:25 PM

Julian:

"Food costs would go up, not just on out of state produce, but on everything considering that this state can't produce all the manure and fertilizer it needs all by itself."

I'm not so sure about that last sentence. I think with the help of people like Snyder and Guano Tejas there, they are probably in surplus.

Posted by: democommie | March 11, 2009 12:34 PM

Dumoustier,
Is this right? I've never heard this term, which isn't exactly surprising, I'm not an evangelical.
Anyway, that is a 'poorly coined term'. I was on another blog yesterday, with a lot of ranting and raving back and forth, and I don't think either side attributed a cell to an evangelical bible study group. There were a few people on there getting excited about a possible violent uprising, assuming cell to mean exactly how it sounds to our ears these days, a terrorist cell. Wow, I hope they figure out it's a term for a bible study group, and not a call to arms to usurp the government, because these folks were getting practically rabid about seceding, violent revolutions, and good old President Chuck..
It was very weird, although I'm sure most of them probably couldn't muster up enough energy to get up off the couch, much less do it violently.

Posted by: Seed | March 11, 2009 6:05 PM

I love how Norris blames Obama for putting us in debt. IT had nothin to do with the trillions of dollars spent in Iraq or the bailouts that GEORGE BUSH issued which ended up "mismanaging" $350 billion. NObody knows where that money went. Poof, its gone. One word. "Deregulation".

I hope Texas DOES defect. They can become part of Mexico and the cartel can take them over. Either that or we blow them up. Either way, i could give two shits.

Posted by: Chad | March 11, 2009 8:55 PM

At first I laughed when I heard about Mr. Norris's statement. The second stage was disbelief, then the truth sank in.

Sadly, Chuck's thought process is typical among the radical right-wing, the people who cling to their god and guns, but apparently not so much the American flag anymore. They are not subtle when they express what they fear, and they fear anything they don't understand, which is a whole helluva lot. They have difficulty noticing their own irrational thinking because their fragile egos are defended by irrational, unsupportable extreme religious beliefs, and all their friends think just like them. These are the kind of people who left Europe because they were persecuted for their crazy beliefs, and there is no more Wild West to take from the natives, so they live in a cowboy world of fantasy violence that might actually become real if for some reason America went Mad Max.

What worries me is the pervasiveness of this radical right ideology and how it has invaded the mainstream media through unaccountable anti-intellectual pundits. Just as the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act removed the distinction between investments and savings & loans, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk blur the distinction between fact and opinion. All of this is done to keep their own ranks of voters uninformed, xenophobic, and loyal. The end product is a huge population of mis educated listeners, in the service of one facet of the business elite, but under the Obama presidency, they are like confused attack dogs torn between loyalties to their country or their religion. In the event of another civil war, isn't it possible that these armed militias would be the ones most likely to unleash violence upon minority groups, as in Rwanda where the radio was used to incite bloody massacres?

Posted by: Walter | March 12, 2009 12:30 AM

I also support Chuck Norris thinking, but unfortunately he doesn't seem inclined to think.

While I rather like it here in TX, if there are enough idiots wanting to try Civil War v. 2.0, my family will be heading over to Thailand to wait it out. Hopefully the federally-appointed TX government after the war will be better than the chuckleheads that get elected here now.

Posted by: Pohranicni Straze | March 12, 2009 12:13 PM

A "free thinker" who names himself after a Russian dictator? Not much more to say here...

Posted by: Raging Bee | March 12, 2009 3:37 PM

Jim in Texas: It is sad to see our current Government no longer respects the individual freedoms we have worked and fought for....

I agree. But it is at least marginally better now that Bush and his cronies are gone, doncha think? So that does give some hope for the future.

Posted by: Chiroptera | March 12, 2009 4:45 PM

All you Southern bashers seem to forget:

The South, with no manufacturing capability, with no weapons facilities, with no arsenals or pre-disposed military units, Damn near, on two occasions, defeated the north.

This with barefoot soldiers with their personal hunting rifles, against your organized, manufacturer supported army.

You were taking Irish immigrants off the boats, fleeing the potato famine, in their tens of thousands to fill your ranks...

You won... but barely. By the skin of your teeth.

But for Pickets Charge at Gettysburg, the history books would have been very, very different.

You might also want to consider the fact that 90% of Americas Nuclear arsenal is housed in the former Confederate States, including your entire inventory of B-2 Stealth Bombers...

Additionally, 78% of the current U.S. Armed Forces hails from Former Confederate States.

You may find your military uncooperative if you order them to bomb their own friends, families and states...

My money would be on the Confederacy, this round.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 12, 2009 8:28 PM

I think this thread is just one more troll drive-by away from being overrun by Southern Nationalists....

*gets popcorn*

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 12, 2009 8:58 PM

Mbritt - only on 'two occasions'? As I read it, the Confederacy won a lot of battles, they just couldn't win the war.
The Federal forces finally surrounded and strangled the Confederacy into submission, by force of numbers (11 to 5 Million, approximately) as much as by technology (repeating rifles, telegraph, railways & etc.)
Oh sorry, I see! You're using the Scooby-Doo Big Book of History:
"We would have won too, if it weren't for those pesky kids!" - :) DJ
PS:There are examples of a small force defeating a much larger one. The American Civil War, however, is not, per se, one of them (IMHO).

Posted by: DingoJack | March 12, 2009 9:00 PM

The only real chance the South had was to convince one of the European powers to back them. It's a tribute to Britain that they refused to do so mainly because of slavery.

Posted by: Taz | March 12, 2009 10:19 PM

GOOO TEXAS....GO CHUCK NORRIS, it's about time we had some change, not the type that obama talks about but change for the better for example: TEXAS SECESSION!!!!!I am not an American, I am a TEXAN, pledge allegiance to the Texas flag that solely protects the freedom of the people and preserves the constitution and all of our values, beliefs, and what we stand up for. Freedom is worth fighting for!!!!Here is a little history lesson for the U.S. government, according to LAISSEZ FAIRE and CAPITALISM, all the power rest in the hands of the PEOPLE, not the government. Everything should be for the people and by the people. So feds, Texas is getting the hell out of the union!!! Pick up a history book you contradicting hypocritical assholes. GOOOO TEXASSSS!!!!

Posted by: Little Missy | March 12, 2009 11:59 PM

Ahh, did i mention the wing of pilots who fly the B-2 Spirits are named the "Fighting Tigers"...

After Louisiana's famed fighting regiment of The War Against Northern Aggression?...

They will be with you too :)

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 12:16 AM

Oh wait, that would be the entire nations strategic petroleum reserve in Louisiana too wouldn't it?... and both of its oil refining centers... All of its pipelines, and the gulf of mexico production platforms...

Actually, we are on a far better platform than even i realized at first, yeah, secession sounding better and better, we will all be rich once we ditch the north. Like UAE and Saudi :) We produce 10 times what we use.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 12:29 AM

Mbritt - In fact slavery had everything to do with the American Civil War. The southern states succeeded, in part, because Lincoln was elected and they considered him a 'black' candidate (ie pro-emancipation).
1st Bull Run. Both side had 18,000 engaged soldiers.
2nd Bull Run. Pope outnumbered Lee by 12,000 men.
Not exactly a small force defeating a much larger one.

"ME: There are plenty of cases of a smaller force defeating a much lager one, the American Civil War, however, is not, per se, one of them
YOU: How could it be, the smaller force lost?"

Posted by: DingoJack | March 13, 2009 1:13 AM

Death once had a near Chuck Norris experience. Sorry, couldn't help it.

Posted by: jeremy | March 13, 2009 7:15 AM

[...] The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. [...]

-Alexander Stephens, vice-president of the Confederate States of America, displaying his ignorance on the cause of the Civil War in 1861

Pohranicni, how dare you try use their own words against them??? VP Stephens was obviously referring to something other than slavery being the immediate cause of the civil war here! 555555

*enjoying popcorn still*

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 7:42 AM

Mbritt, you might try reading some of the history of the US leading up to the Civil War. Slavery was the one unresolvable issue. Without slavery the war never would have happened. All the conflicts between the North and South had their roots in it.

Oh wait, that would be the entire nations strategic petroleum reserve in Louisiana too wouldn't it?... and both of its oil refining centers... All of its pipelines, and the gulf of mexico production platforms...

Posted by: Taz | March 13, 2009 9:01 AM

Greetings, doctorgoo,

Yes, i have read it, many times now, and long before it was ever posted on this comment thread, even your "bold" sections, i assure you.

But you site only a rabble rousing political speech as evidence, I or anyone can readily point to your current president, Barack Obama, and his rabble rousing speech in support of Unions forever, just prior to election... now where are the Unions, under his policy?

Politicians say whatever is expedient at the time, depending on the crowd they are speaking to, always have, always will.

The fact that the slavery question had been ongoing for over 100 years without a war notwithstanding, The unquestionable trigger for this war, as with all wars, was monetary. Cotton. King Cotton.

I suggest you take a moment to read this dissertation:
*Links Deleted*

While slavery was an issue, the trigger is always money. When the North tried to forbid the sale of southern cotton to foreign entities, that was the tipping point.

Greetings, Taz,

>>>I used to work pipeline. In Michigan, California, and Wyoming, not Louisiana. Part of the California job was at the strategic petroleum reserve there.

Mmm hmmm, ok, They may have a small facility there, they don't mention it on their website, but a quick check of the website on the matter yields:

>>The SPR management office is located in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The reserve is stored at four sites on the Gulf of Mexico, each located near a major center of petrochemical refining and processing. Each site contains a number of artificial caverns created in salt domes below the surface.

*Links Deleted*

I know the east coast had a heck of a time getting gas and oil for weeks after Ike and Gustav...

EDIT>>
Second Post, first reply was not posed, i guess because of Links.

Greetings, Raging Bee,

>>>Ever read anything about this thing called "World War II?" That's where our Union -- the country that morons like you want to destroy -- fought very successfully to crush one genocidal, mass-murdering regime

Yes, it was specifically WW2 that i was referring to.

>>>No one is "talking secession again" other than halfwits like you who can't face the complex reality of the twentieth century, let alone the twenty-first.

Base insults aside, there are a lot of "half wits" like me, and we are quite tired of being associated with the raging march towards socialism and governmental oversight of our private lives that your ilk seems to need.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 10:27 AM

Every time a national movement gets started to liberate individuals from some sort of injustice, people like Mbritt start screaming about "socialism" and accusing said movement of trying to TAKE AWAY individual liberties. The South's reaction to the Civil Rights movement is a perfect example -- not to mention their earlier secession in response to a movement to liberate slaves. Mbritt's looking-glass blitherings about "socialism and governmental oversight of our private lives" merely continues this hallowed tradition; and its sheer nonsensicality indicates either insanity or cellular-level dishonesty.

Posted by: Raging Bee | March 13, 2009 12:03 PM

Way back when wBritt posted:

"Yes, 12,000 is a significant number when Lee's total force was only 50,000...that would be over 1/5th his total force, *oh great enumerator*, such a lopsided battle would not be fought again until the eastern front of WW2.. *oh great historian*... "

Posted by: DingoJack | March 13, 2009 12:23 PM

CAN WE SELL TEXAS TO MEXICO ? IF WE CAN ,WE COULD USE THE MONEY TO HELP ALL THE PEOPLE WHOSE LIVES HAVE BEEN TURNED UPSIDE DOWN BY THE BUSH REGIME. SORRY ,TO ANY TEXAN WHO REALLY LOVES BEING UNITED .

Posted by: john the carpenter | March 13, 2009 1:36 PM

>>>>DingoJack, Off the top of my head, the defense of Rourke's Drift, 470 English & Natal Men against 6,000 or so Zulus, 1879.
Note unlike Lee (outnumbered by 24%), Forces under Chard were outnumbered by 1176%. Care to revise your bold statment?- DJ

No, i would not, 476 men with repeating rifles verses 6000 men with spears and shields, fighting as undisciplined irregulars, hardly counts as a pitched battle between professional forces. That is a slaughter, not a battle.

>>> Battle of Palikao

Again, the whole spears / sword cavalry vs modern rifle infantry problem.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 1:42 PM

Yep - 'cause them niggers sure 'nuff can't fight.
It's only Caucasians that count, right?
Sorry, you made a ridiculous sweeping statement ("most lopsided battles until the Eastern Front during WW1"), I came up with actual evidence to refute it, and this is the best you can do? Doesn't bode well for your argument. -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | March 13, 2009 2:03 PM

No, Taxes, ladies and gentlemen, Taxes...

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Posted by: Taz | March 13, 2009 2:30 PM

DingoJack,

Wow, i can't believe they allow that sort of content here...

No, i don't expect that 6000 white people with wooden spears and leather shields would fare any better against 500 men with repeating rifles either...

Why do you seem to think i am White? You know nothing about me, other than that i favor dissolution of the Union... Is free thought denied to black men in your mind?

Perhaps you would rather just find a reasonable example of a similar event between modern armies, since they are so common in that time frame, and since my suggestion is so "ludicrous'

>>>So, Mbritt, care to give us a more specific picture of how, exactly, our government has "failed to represent the interests of the people, or uphold the constitution?

Certainly.

Article 1
Under Section. 8, No powers are granted the federal government for the taxing of the citizens to provide for education, nor is power granted them to provide education. And before you say General Welfare, educating every child in the nation is not "General" that is quite specific.

>>Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

For instance, taxing citizens according to their income, habits, or preferences. e.g. cigarettes, liquor, diapers, baby powder, machine guns, or any other specific item you would lay a tax on to punish the users of said items.

(see 16th Amendment)

>>>Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Like the Tariffs imposed on the Southern states regarding the export of their cotton, to force it's ginning in the North.

Section. 10.

>>>Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Not a violation, but why did they put that clause in there, do you suppose?

Article II
Section 1

>>>Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There is a significant problem in the case of the current seated president, this may well be a violation, i find his refusal to submit a valid certified original copy of his birth certificate, coupled with assertions from his own family, that he was born in Kenya, as a Indonesian citizen very troubling, and the supreme court striking the requirement very convenient.

>>>Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I don't think anyone would disagree this oath has been broken on multiple occasions.

Amendment 1

>>>Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Has been done on several occasions, and even now is being tried again.

Amendment 2

>>> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Again, unquestionably no doubt that the rights of the people in this regard are being impugned regularly, and deliberately.

Amendment 4

>>>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Warrantless searches and seizures are a staple of the ATF, IRS, and other federal institutions empowered by the RICO Act.

Amendment 5

>>>...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent domain laws now allow Private property to be seized by governments and given to other private institutions, like businesses, solely for the purpose of increasing tax revenues. A clear violation.

Amendment 8

>>>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bails of up to 80 times the mean average income of the nation are regularly imposed as punitive measures against defendants, particularly when brought up on civil charges in federal courts, for lack of evidence to convict for proper criminal offenses.

Amendment 9

>>>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not a violation, but this specifically guarantees that governments do not misinterpret the enumeration of the rights listed as being the only rights granted, all other rights are presumed to be held inviolate... Today the presumption of individual liberty is limited to the rights listed, in direct contravention of this intention.

Amendment 10

>>>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This demonstrates the State and the People as being absolute authority over all unspoken rights, including the right to secede from the Union itself, which was countermanded at the point of a gun with a full military invasion.

Amendment 16

>>>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

An amendment directly countermanding one of the prerequisites of Article 1... Blatant disregard for the structure and intent of the document.

Amendment 18

No need going into it, it was repealed, but again a Blatant violation of constitutional authority by amendment.

amendment 24

>>>Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

A clear violation of rights reserved for the states.

Amendment 27

>>>No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The very fact that this amendment was passed, over 200 years after it's first submission, demonstrates the failure of the constitutional authority to prevent the government, or those served by the government, from voting themselves the treasury... As can now be seen to be the case with the welfare state voting in pro welfare, pro socialist, pro government check individuals to provide them with their lifestyle.

I leave you with the words of the author of the Constitution...

>>>A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure., November 13, 1787, letter to William Stephens Smith, quoted in Padover's Jefferson On Democracy

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 3:44 PM

mbritt to DJ:

Why do you seem to think i am White? You know nothing about me, other than that i favor dissolution of the Union... Is free thought denied to black men in your mind?

I'm sure that DJ can answer for himself, but there's probably a very good chance that you ARE a racist person against African Americans. While it's true that one doesn't necessarily have to be racist in order to be a Southern Nationalist, I've never met one on this (or any other forum) who wasn't... it just took some time for them to reveal themselves as such.

I personally think that DJ and Raging Bee went off too quickly on you... after all, you're still trying to play the victim card here (saying that my words are "venomous" and slapping DJ's wrists for all his naughty words... lol). But since you've already shown that you're not careful enough to hide your sickness when it comes to your desire to hurt my country or its citizenry, I just figured that I'd let you reveal yourself as a racist sicko (and not just a regular sicko... lol) before I jumped all over you for it.

Oh... and all your alleged Constitutional violations? Some of them, I must admit, do have a hint of merit**. But why not try to get someone you think is better elected as President the next time around... or in the 2010 congressional elections, encourage people to vote for the candidates who will stand up to the current President. The solution certainly isn't to overthrow our government which has worked so well for 2 centuries!!

**I'm being VERY generous when I say that some of your list has a hint of merit. Mind you, most of it is absolute absurdity... with virtually no support from any person in Congress, the White House, or the Supreme Court, liberal or conservative, past or present.

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 4:11 PM

Ah yes, Mbritt is a birfer, still spewing the same old vague nonsense about how "that one" may not really be "one of us," based on absolutely no real evidence whatsoever. We've dealt with that strain of mentally-bankrupt BS already, and there's no use wasting our time with one more wackaloon trying to ignore a whole Universe full of documented facts.

Posted by: Raging Bee | March 13, 2009 4:20 PM

doctorgoo,

Thank you, i certainly appreciate the civility!

As to the charge of racism, it's one of my favorite that people bandy about on the comments threads, impossible to prove or disprove, save some ridiculous outburst, and it is supposed to ignite immediate repulsion and indignation, at least to the thin skinned this era has bred.

In truth, we are all racist, in so far as we are not, and never will be a completely free associating and homogeneous society. That society has never existed, and never will.

People are comfortable around those they are familiar with, if you were raised in a black family, you will be more comfortable around black people, if you were raised in a white family, you will be more comfortable around white people, regardless of what color your skin is. If a sheep is raised with dogs, it will be more comfortable around dogs than sheep.

It is animal nature, it is human, as animal, nature. All living beings display this.

Thus the charge of racism is moot, we are *all* racist, at least to some degree.

Many people would say i was *not* racist because my wife is other than my own race. I think that is false. Just because my wife happens to be a different race than I, doesn't mean I couldn't be the most bigoted person on the planet.

There is no defense against the charge, you may as well charge someone with being an alien or a witch... What is the test? how do you disprove it? You cannot.

As such the charge

>>>But since you've already shown that you're not careful enough to hide your sickness when it comes to your desire to hurt my country or its citizenry.

I have stated no such desire, You have read that in.

All i have called for is the dissolution of the Union.

Peacefully would suit me just fine, however, i strongly doubt your side will remain peaceful this time around either.

I have very legitimate reasons to suspect violence on the part of the federalists will be applied as a solution to the simple exercise of free will by a self determining people once again.

DO you *not* believe this to be the case??

>>>The solution certainly isn't to overthrow our government which has worked so well for 2 centuries!!

How "well" it has worked is a matter of opinion, 400,000 citizens slain at each others hands in the quest for independence would seem to suggest something other than *well*, It certainly would make a perfect family episode for Jerry Springer, at the least...

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 4:28 PM

Mbritt: Thomas Jefferson, a fellow "nutjob" of mine....

Yeah, Mbritt, you're in the same class as Thomas Jefferson.

Posted by: Chiroptera | March 13, 2009 4:36 PM

I read it, asshole - I've read it before. It doesn't change the reality of the here and now, and it doesn't change the point I made that sailed right over your head. Your dreamy little revolution is never going to happen. I hope you haven't devoted too many hours to it, because if you have you've wasted your time. Yeah, I'm quite comfortable, and nothing some Chuck Norris wannabe writes on a blog is going to change that. Did it ever occur to you that someone actually thinking of overthrowing the government wouldn't publicize the fact? If I had to bet on it I'd go with the probability that the majority of your arsenal only exists in your head.

Posted by: Taz | March 13, 2009 4:49 PM

I refuse to defend myself against the charge.

Because you can't. Just like you can't defend your tired old idiodic conspiracy-story about Obama's birth certificate.

Posted by: Raging Bee | March 13, 2009 4:56 PM

I don't have time to get into the totality of this argument, but, Mbritt, I have to point out... the *point* of an amendment to the Constitution is to *change the Constitution*! It makes no sense to complain that the 16th Amendment runs counter to the text of the Constitution because it *supersedes* the text.

Posted by: Squiddhartha | March 13, 2009 5:00 PM

Mbritt - there's not going to be any succession, either. And the people who said "goodbye Texas" are both a minority of the people posting and not being literal. You really should become better acquainted with reality.

Posted by: Taz | March 13, 2009 5:04 PM

Raging Bee:

Ah yes, Mbritt is a birfer, still spewing the same old vague nonsense about how "that one" may not really be "one of us," based on absolutely no real evidence whatsoever.

You know, when I went fishing to see if he was a 9/11 troofer or a lunar-landing lunatic, I seriously thought about hinting around about him being an Obama birfer, too.

But like I said before... you really don't have to accuse these idiot trolls of anything... they are as likely as not to expose their own stupidity, racism and whatnot.

Taz:

doctorgoo - Don't feed his pathetic little fantasy.

Ahhhh... come on! Can't I feed the troll a little bit more?? He still amuses me! ;-)

Now that he's admitted his racism (and in the process projected his racist beliefs onto others), I feel as though I could continue using him as a punching bag for a good long time here. LOL

*grabs more popcorn*

FYI... on a more serious note, mbritt... you're confusing racism with justifiable prejudices. For example, I'll admit that I'm very prejudiced against admitted rapists and murderers. But any reasonable, objective observer would feel that this is justified. Racism is always unjustified... and quite unseemly in this day and age.

But your defense of racism, along with your birfer and other gov't conspiracies ON TOP OF your sicko violence fantasies as a Southern Nationalist... well, you've painted a really ugly painting of yourself here. You shouldn't expect anybody here to show you an ounce of respect because you have shown that you aren't deserving of any.

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 5:21 PM

5 bucks says he's really out of here so he can go home and "polish his rifle collection"...

My 5 bucks says he's out of here (after lots of LONG posts, mind you) because he's starting to realize how far out at sea he is here, and how little traction his idiotic talking-points are getting.

Posted by: Raging Bee | March 13, 2009 5:44 PM

Article 1 Under Section. 8, No powers are granted the federal government for the taxing of the citizens to provide for education, nor is power granted them to provide education. And before you say General Welfare, educating every child in the nation is not "General" that is quite specific.

Under what insane definition is that not general?

>>Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

For instance, taxing citizens according to their income, habits, or preferences. e.g. cigarettes, liquor, diapers, baby powder, machine guns, or any other specific item you would lay a tax on to punish the users of said items.

None of the above listed are direct taxes. Thery are, in fact, indirect taxes.

>>>Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Like the Tariffs imposed on the Southern states regarding the export of their cotton, to force it's ginning in the North.

But these were tariffs on imports, not exports, and thus perfectly legal under the Constitution. Jacking over the South might not have been a good idea, but it was perfectly legal.

Section. 10.

>>>Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Not a violation, but why did they put that clause in there, do you suppose?

For different reasons than you suppose, I suppose.

Article II Section 1

>>>Clause 5: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There is a significant problem in the case of the current seated president, this may well be a violation, i find his refusal to submit a valid certified original copy of his birth certificate, coupled with assertions from his own family, that he was born in Kenya, as a Indonesian citizen very troubling, and the supreme court striking the requirement very convenient.

Seeing as he has presented a valid certified copy of his proof of place of birth, which under state and federal law and the constitution itself (Full Faith and Credit Clause) constitutes prima facie evidence in any US court that he is
a natural born citizen (if a child born in the US to two immigrants, only one of whom was naturalized at the time, is a natural-born citizen according to the Supreme Court, then a child born to a natural-born citizen on US soil is certainly a natural-born citizen), it requires more evidence than his father's step-mother being asked if she was there for the birth of her son-oops-I-meant-grandson-who-has-the-same-name or a elementary school record that may have merely placed him in a category by virtue of his step-father's ctizenship to make me question his eligibility.

>>>Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I don't think anyone would disagree this oath has been broken on multiple occasions.

That "to the best of my Ability" clause is quite the out, isn't it?

Amendment 1

>>>Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

Has been done on several occasions, and even now is being tried again.

But only ever to make sure that there is no de facto abridging of speech due to government-limited fora. The current movement for a renewed Fairness Doctrine won't make it out of Congress, and wouldn't survive a trip to the Supreme Court if it did.

Amendment 2

>>> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Again, unquestionably no doubt that the rights of the people in this regard are being impugned regularly, and deliberately.

At the federal level? Secession won't solve it at state or local levels.

Amendment 4

>>>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Warrantless searches and seizures are a staple of the ATF, IRS, and other federal institutions empowered by the RICO Act.

This one I'll give you.

Amendment 5

>>>...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Eminent domain laws now allow Private property to be seized by governments and given to other private institutions, like businesses, solely for the purpose of increasing tax revenues. A clear violation.

That is a mischaracterization of Kelo. While I certainly disagree with the Court in this instance, your construction of what it allows is false. Frankly, the "just compensation" is the part that I find most abused. And again, this is not happening at the federal level, so secession doesn't solve the problem.

Amendment 8

>>>Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Bails of up to 80 times the mean average income of the nation are regularly imposed as punitive measures against defendants, particularly when brought up on civil charges in federal courts, for lack of evidence to convict for proper criminal offenses.

Unfortunately for you, this clause was deliberately left vague. As, I note, is your statement. What is "excessive?" What is "regularly?" Also, how can bail be punitive? It is only collected if the defendant fails to show for trial. And there are provisions, such as habeus corpus, for challenging allegedly excessive bail.

Amendment 9

>>>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not a violation, but this specifically guarantees that governments do not misinterpret the enumeration of the rights listed as being the only rights granted, all other rights are presumed to be held inviolate... Today the presumption of individual liberty is limited to the rights listed, in direct contravention of this intention.

Not true. There are several individual rights recognized not specifically listed. However, the government isn't particularly good at recognizing this particular amendment, so I'll give you partial credit.

Amendment 10

>>>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This demonstrates the State and the People as being absolute authority over all unspoken rights, including the right to secede from the Union itself, which was countermanded at the point of a gun with a full military invasion.

Perhaps. But then again, the first shots were fired at Federal forces, on Federal territory. There's a hell of a lot of grey in this area.

Amendment 16

>>>The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

An amendment directly countermanding one of the prerequisites of Article 1... Blatant disregard for the structure and intent of the document.

Actually, wrong on two counts. First, an income tax is generally considered to be an indirect tax. Due to a nebulous Supreme Court decision, it was deemed prudent to clarify the point. Kinda like what happened with the 11th Amendment (surprised you didn't list that one). Also, seeing as the Constitution was written so as to permit additions and alterations through the amendment process, any amendment that makes it through that process is in fact in keeping with the structure and intent of the document.

Amendment 18

No need going into it, it was repealed, but again a Blatant violation of constitutional authority by amendment.

Again, by definition, no. How very unconstitutional of you to advance this argument.

amendment 24

>>>Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

A clear violation of rights reserved for the states.

Don't really get this whole amendment concept, do you? Oh, by the way: poll taxes were racist. Doesn't look good for you to attack this voluntary ceding of a right by the states.

Amendment 27

>>>No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The very fact that this amendment was passed, over 200 years after it's first submission, demonstrates the failure of the constitutional authority to prevent the government, or those served by the government, from voting themselves the treasury... As can now be seen to be the case with the welfare state voting in pro welfare, pro socialist, pro government check individuals to provide them with their lifestyle.

Not only do you not understand the amendment process, you don't even understand that this amendment actually hindered the government from voting itself the treasury.

Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | March 13, 2009 6:45 PM

And the scorecard:

mbritt wants to secede from the Union because

the feds use standard English x3

the feds followed the constitution x9.5 (including above)

there was a squabble over the constitution 150 years ago

the president is sometimes less competent than he would like

the feds sometimes try to make sure minority speech is not shut out

he believes in conspiracy theories

the feds aren't preventing states from violating the constitution x3

legitimate complaints x1.5

I believe that places him firmly in the "delusional wingnut" category.

Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | March 13, 2009 7:08 PM

Greetings, W. Kevin Vicklund,

>>>Under what insane definition is that not general?

Granting a Federal endowment for the purchasing of School books by the privately run schools, and providing for testing, to ensure uniformity, would be general.

Owning and running the schools, that is quite specific.

>>>None of the above listed are direct taxes. Thery are, in fact, indirect taxes.

An indirect tax would be a general tax, here is the definition:

>>an indirect tax (such as sales tax, value added tax (VAT), or goods and services tax (GST)) is a tax collected by an intermediary (such as a retail store) from the person who bears the ultimate economic burden of the tax (such as the customer). The intermediary later files a tax return and forwards the tax proceeds to government with the return. In this sense, the term indirect tax is contrasted with a direct tax which is collected directly by government from the persons (legal or natural) on which it is imposed

All the taxes i mentioned, laying a tax specifically on an item, over an above normal tax rates, is specific, direct taxing, with the intent to punish, and in 3 of the cases i mentioned, is collected *directly* by the government, in the form of stamps that must be placed on the item *before* it is sold.

>>>But these were tariffs on imports, not exports, and thus perfectly legal under the Constitution. Jacking over the South might not have been a good idea, but it was perfectly legal.

Negative, these were taxes placed on the *export* of cotton to foreign nationals by the Southern states, to preclude the foreign interests from buying the unrefined cotton and buying it themselves, thus forcing the south to sell to the north and the north to sell the refined cotton to the foreign entities.

>>>For different reasons than you suppose, I suppose.

Really, why do you suppose what you suppose?

>>>Seeing as he has presented a valid certified copy of his proof of place of birth,...

You are misinformed.

What he presented was an image of a birth certificate, published online. The original has never been formally reviewed, and has been placed under seal by the democratic governor of Hawaii, a highly irregular move. An examination of the image he provided, by the Israeli MOSSAD found a high degree of probability it was a forgery, post dated and filled out several years after his birth. This was not unusual practice in Hawaii at the time, with foreign births. Further, His own family members testify to being present at his birth, in Kenya, where his mother flew, from Indonesia, to give birth... Are they lying?

The "certificate" they displayed, was dated 2007, they claimed they had just received it... it had never been folded, and put into a legal envelope, as is customary with Birth Certificates... Strange...

With all the doubt, all Barack has to do is order his original unsealed and display it, as was required by the constitutional provision within 30 days of seeking the presidency. He could have done it then. He could do it now. But he has not, and he won't.. ever... bank on it.

>>> That "to the best of my Ability" clause is quite the out, isn't it?

Indeed.

>>>. The current movement for a renewed Fairness Doctrine won't make it out of Congress, and wouldn't survive a trip to the Supreme Court if it did.

I hope you are right, but i would equally hope i never have to rely on the SCOTUS to defend my liberties, they have such a poor record. They are far more interested in political expediency than justice.

>>>At the federal level? Secession won't solve it at state or local levels.

Yes, the newly regurgitated so called "assault weapons ban", (which has no effect on assault rifles, btw), will be re-implemented within the year.

>>>This one I'll give you.

Accepted.

>>>That is a mischaracterization of Kelo....this is not happening at the federal level, so secession doesn't solve the problem.

It was affirmed and upheld by the SCOTUS... that makes it a federal problem.

>>>Also, how can bail be punitive? It is only collected if the defendant fails to show for trial.

Negative, it is the amount the defendant must pay to *get out of jail*... He must pay the cash bail or buy a bond for the amount. If it is set deliberately high as to prevent the suspect from being able to be released from jail, then it is being used punitively.

If they think that the suspect is *truly* a flight risk, or a risk to the community, then they should order him *held without bond*, and accept the constitutional duties that entails, not abuse the system by saying, oh we set a bail.. at 100 million dollars... for a man with a 24,000 a year income, or no income at all. It is gross abuse of power.

>>>Not true.

Please explain what you find not true about that statement.

>>>Perhaps. But then again, the first shots were fired at Federal forces, on Federal territory.

Incorrect, Fort Sumter ceased to be federal territory the moment SC seceded from the Union. The Union forces were ordered out, and offered safe passage back to federal land.

They refused to yield to a duly elected democratic government, and thus became foreign combatants holding a portion of sovereign territory.

>>>Actually, wrong on two counts. First, an income tax is generally considered to be an indirect tax. Due to a nebulous Supreme Court decision, it was deemed prudent to clarify the point. Kinda like what happened with the 11th Amendment (surprised you didn't list that one). Also, seeing as the Constitution was written so as to permit additions and alterations through the amendment process, any amendment that makes it through that process is in fact in keeping with the structure and intent of the document.

I agree that it is an indirect tax, however, my intent is to show that it is not being levied with regard to the census, but by social position and income, the tax is not level for all. It varies by your properties, profits, and status. This is in clear violation

With regard to the amendment of the document. You are amending one of the first things written into the document and ratified the easiest by all parties...

Do you then agree, that if they pass an amendment to the constitution, forbidding the entire bill of rights, we should accept it, simply because it was done by the constitutional process??? Just because it is done by the books, does not make the action constitutional.

>>>Again, by definition, no. How very unconstitutional of you to advance this argument.

The banning of livelihoods by the stroke of a pen does not a constitutional act make, it would not have survived supreme court challenges for much longer, had it not been struck. I point again to my above comment. Just because they write it into the Constitution, does not make it constitutional.

>>>Don't really get this whole amendment concept, do you?

I do, really i do!, I just don't believe that simply because we manage to pass an amendment that said all people named joe must be killed, that makes it a valid and incontestable part of the constitution. History backs me up on this, there have been some very poor amendments that have been struck...

You don't seem to understand that even evil men know how to write and vote, and must be governed and held accountable for what they write and vote for, by a higher authority, the people.

>>Not only do you not understand the amendment process, you don't even understand that this amendment actually hindered the government from voting itself the treasury.

Incorrect, as i stated, the very fact it existed 200 years ago, and the necessity of it, *demonstrates* the danger that is proving true in the act *of* the treasury being voted.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 7:46 PM

History will be the judge of what you have won and lost with your vote.

... and I'm sure that if you don't like what History has to say, then you'll try to rewrite it.

You can cry all you want and threaten to secede all you want. But you know that it's never gonna happen. Just get over yourself and stop your damn whining!!

Oh, and good luck arguing the Constitution with all the Con-Law experts on this forum... lol... But they're all weak lefties, correct?? I'm sure Chuckie Norris has taught you the proper way to drop-kick everyone in the nuts at the same time, right?

Well.. thanks for trying... lol

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 8:02 PM

Mr. Magoo, missed your earlier post, just found it, big post had it up away's, sorry for the delay

>>>your admitted racism --

Im sorry, can you quote me where i said i was racist, my wife wants to read that.

>>>You claim that 80% of the military are good ole boy rednecks,

No, i claim that 78% of military recruitment is from southern, former confederate states, that is verifiable, please feel free to Google military recruitment demographics. here, i will do it for you: http://www.heritage.org/CDA/CDA_troops_flash_graphic/CDA_troops_2008.html

All the southern states top 10, except 1, all the northern states bottom 30, except 1. always the exception to the rule i guess.

>>>Fact: Most of the powerful, western countries in Europe are well to the left of the Democrats, politically speaking. Yet they don't require uber-(faux)-macho "men with spears" like you to 'protect' them.

You say that with a straight face?
Of course not, they have the big macho men from the US states guarding them for the last 60 years... that limp Euro-male defense didn't stand up to well when some real wolves arose in Europe, did it?.. If memory serves, they ended up importing wolves to fight for them.

>>>Do you compensate for your own feelings of inadequacy by accusing others of the same?

Negative, sorry to disappoint, I simply try to imagine you in a riot, defending your home, and somehow it just doesn't work out for me... I see the masses with bats, pipes, shotguns and crapulent tec-9's overrunning your house.

>>>And it didn't require us seceding... or threatening to overthrow the government, either.

You did overthrow the government, you just don't realize you did it. Every vote is a declaration of war, a good example would be the Gazan people and the Israelis...

I feel no sympathy for the Gazan's, they voted hamas into power, then they complain and whine that they are being bombed by those mean old Israelis... how dare them bomb their city when they are trying to shoot rockets out of it into Israel, it's just not *fair*...
Your vote for a left leaning pseudo socialist has created a situation where the American dollar has been significantly damaged, international trust of our treasuries diminished, reliance on our alliances weakened, and the enemies of the nation emboldened..

Don't forget, HAMAS and Al-Queda both endorsed Barack :)

He is being rolled over and abused in the international theater, because of his inexperience, and is rapidly becoming viewed as a empty suit, not to be concerned with.

This is very dangerous, not only for the North, but my beloved South as well.. America is very weak right now. When fear overcomes caution, the wolves begin to circle.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 8:40 PM

Well guess what, a republican got elected, and the democrats seceded...

Yes, Abe was a Republican. And so was MLK, too! So what happened to your party in the past few decades??

These days, the GOP is the party of hate and intolerance. Virtually every klansman self-describes his political affiliation as Republican. Non-Christians and homosexuals are considered to be less than dirt by the Palin-described "Real America". And the geographic/racial demographic that voted the least for Obama was Southern whites... many of them not shy at all to say that they'd never, ever vote for a black President. (Just google some of the Palin campaign stop videos on Youtube for many idiot dittoheads who would proudly spout their racist rants with the cameras rolling right in front of them.)

Yeah, it used to be a matter of pride for people to vote Republican. Why do you think so many independents and even many (former) Bush Sr- and Reagan- Republicans voted for against your party? Hell, if it wasn't Obama, Hillary would have wiped her butt with any GOP candidate out there too. In fact, McCain was in many regards the most centrist of your candidates, and not even he stood a chance!

Really dude... the GOP at the national level has been pwned HARD the past 2 election cycles. They currently have no ideas to sell, just throw every anti-Obama slur they can find. (My personal favorite is the Socialist slur... lol Hell, if the current administration is Socialist, then every single Western European democracy must be downright Communist!)

Nor have i "whined" about it [...] Your screeches and moans come far closer to whining than anything i have said today.

And your rant about all us "weak" lefties**? Well, it might have felt like a good chance for you to vent. But for everyone else, we saw it as one big whiny baby lashing out at everyone during a temper tantrum.

**with Lefties apparently including all the independents and libertarians here on Ed's blog, according to mbritt's logic for some strange reason.

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 8:54 PM

Im sorry, can you quote me where i said i was racist, my wife wants to read that.

Here it is, mbritt:

In truth, we are all racist, in so far as we are not, and never will be a completely free associating and homogeneous society. That society has never existed, and never will. -- Posted by: Mbritt | March 13, 2009 4:28 PM

You can only speak for yourself... accusing others of being racist is just you projecting onto everybody else.

And the fact that we aren't a homogeneous society doesn't require that racism must exist. What an incredibly dumb concept. Is the reason why race relations have improved in the past half century because of getting rid of all the minority races??? No, of course not! It's by people realizing that people of a different skin tone have the same hopes, dreams and struggles that everybody else has. ... in other words, it's by people realizing through the ethic of reciprocity (AKA: the Golden Rule) that everybody genuinely IS deserving of equal treatment and rights under the law.

Heck, by your dumb logic, then you must act racist to your wife simply because you're a mixed-race couple! Now I'll admit... it's fully possible for a racist (which must exist in your mixed marriage by your logic) to treat his wife relatively well... but only as long as she tends to be a submissive. So yes, I guess your concept passes that hurdle...

...but do you really want to also admit that you're racist towards your wife? Or are you willing to admit that your claim of why 'everybody must be a racist' is extremely weak, bordering on the patently absurd?

Oh, and I certainly do invite you to allow your wife to read your comments on this thread. Bragging about all your guns while at the same time advocating secession and trying to justify the Civil War as not being about slavery?? Hell, you better HOPE your wife is a submissive if you let her read what YOU'VE wrote today! Otherwise I'm sure she'll be stomping your ASS!!! LOL

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 9:21 PM

we wanted a Reagan and we got a Carter.

If the righties in America had wanted a true (by mbritt's definition) Republican instead of the alleged 'liberal' McCain, then your party would have nominated one.

They didn't. Therefore you're just a nutjob on the outer fringe of your own party and COMPLETELY out of touch with the nation that you so desperately want to secede from. Look, if you don't like America enough to try to change it, then either stop whining, or just leave it yourself! I'm sure you can find some totalitarian regime somewhere that would fully appreciate your mentality!

You do know the definition of Socialist right?

Yes I do. But I'm really curious as to hear you define it yourself. In particular, how is the US government under the Obama, Clinton and Carter administrations socialist, but under Bush 1,2 and Reagon NOT virtually equally socialist?

If it were capable for you to be honest with yourself, you'd realize that this claim of "Socialist" is just the newest buzzword used to demonize anything Obama does.

Typical rightwingnut rant: "What, Obama wants to decrease the taxes on the poor and middle class, but increase the taxes on the rich to what they were paying 9 years ago??? He's the BIGGEST SOCIALIST EVAR!!!!!!!"

Typical rightwingnut rant: "What, Obama wants to end our righteous war in Iraq and deploy our troops in Afghanistan instead in search or Bin Laden and Al-Quaeda, while increasing spending on veteran's benefits??? He's the BIGGEST SOCIALIST EVAR!!!!!!!"

*rolls eyes*

Yeah... just ignore all the good he's doing and focus instead of anything that could remotely justify calling Obama a socialist. Damn, these rightwingnuts are stupid!

So I'm curious, how does mbritt define what constitutes a Socialist without showing off his rightwingnutteriness* once again??

*whenever I find my verbal skills lacking, I try to compensate with my wordmakeupage skillz.

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 9:48 PM

She knows the color of my posterior? Oh really??

lol... yes I'm white, and also in a mixed race marriage.

Oh, and racism is "unjustified prejudices based on race". Otherwise, it's just plain old prejudice... which, I'll concede, is sometimes justified when it comes to us democommie libtards.

;-)

But not often. And not nearly as justified as it is against you reTHUGlicans. So there. lol

Time for me to quit the interwebs for the night....

Posted by: doctorgoo | March 13, 2009 10:11 PM

I knew mrbritt would use the heritage numbers for the military. Actually mrbritt you should have read the chart better. Lets go to the data they used to make that pretty little chart.

http://www.defenselink.mil/prhome/poprep2005/download/AppendixB.pdf

Table B-10 Just for example shows active enlisted accessions by region.

South region. 52,733
North regions, West and Central. 74,690

Now we could switch things up and look at where troops are located instead of where they come from. Nah that doesn't help you California and Colorado still have tons of troops...wait we'll miss Texas's money, nah California has a higher GSP and six of the top ten GSP's are northern states, you can add the top four southern states together and not equal the top two northern states. So pretty much however you want to try and slice it. The south would once again lose.

Posted by: Laen | March 13, 2009 10:39 PM

Laen,

Its apples and oranges, it's a completely irrelevant survey you are sighting.

This survey only accounts for the *acquirement of new recruits by **division** relative to states*

This throws a disproportionate number to the states with multiple military bases, and *specifies* recruits by where they officially entered service, not where they were born and raised.

*for instance*, in our favor it incorrectly assigns Delaware, Maryland, and DC to the southern regions, (even though Delaware and Maryland were slave states who provided troops to the South, i ceded both to you in modern comparison), but as for the north, it incorrectly groups Missouri,(again Delaware and Maryland ceded), as well as several states that did not even exist as states during the conflict, but are now heavily Red states, and would be unlikely to side with the north in an actual hostile exchange, (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska)

Additionally, you are including Central and West,(super heavy red states, strongly connected with anti-progressive / conservative movements), in your calculations for the north, including Alaska, Idaho, Utah (/boggle, you must be joking).

And all of this, bear in mind, is by census surveys of where they *live* at the time of enlistment, not where they are born,(and presumably raised)...

With a state by state comparison, completely excluding several states in question from the mix, including Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington who could go either way, (but would be likely to provide resources to the south, as they did before, if not come over completely this time, for strictly theocratic reasons) but adding Alaska, as a bastion of conservatism, i come up with:

North: 62661
South: 64082
Undecided:10018

Now, the above figure, keep in mind, does not account for where the recruit lists his place of birth as, only his current address at time of enlistment.

The heritage numbers are compiled by place of birth listed by the Soldier...
Which i personally find more accurate... As that is where his family is likely to be.

>.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 14, 2009 12:07 AM

And YES, i meant *citing* dambit >.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 14, 2009 12:11 AM

gwangung,

>>Pretty stupidly.

a better choice of words would have been 'poorly'

>>>One thing, Clinton's international reputation is far, far better, even now, than you claim it is.

I have made no claims to Clinton's reputation as it exists now, however, since you brought it up, it is irrelevant to the damage it did the presidency at the time.

>>>Second, you're pretty innumerate

First of all it's 'secondly' secondly, I never remotely referenced the total damage of the freddy mac / fannie mae debacle as being proportional, in any way, to the complete problem of the debt situation we have.

>>>it's the CDOs that are the problems, not the mortgages.

Bogus statement.

If the mortgages had been bona fide quality jobs, like the 60 years of previous mortgages, they would *not* have been sold and bundled into the CDO's in the first place. The weakening of the Lending Standards, by ****federal mandate*** directly influenced the creation of such entities and caused the crash to occur.

>>>Not to mention the fact that Fannie and Freddie Mae loans have LOWER rates of default than non-FMae loans.

Of course they are *lower*, they are government generated instead of government mandated. It only stands to reason that private, for profit institutions are going to have a higher rate of foreclosure than not for profit federal institutions... One institution can actually *loose* money that they must account for to their stockholders, the other *cannot*...

I'm not impressed with your shoddy grasp of For Profit vs. Non Profit / Government Entity.

Spoken like a true liberal.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 14, 2009 12:36 AM

Raging Bee,

>>>What was most "disgraceful" about the Clinton years -- the peace or the prosperity?

Incidentally, you mean peace like Somalia, Serbia, Rwanda, and 1.2 billion dollars worth of tomahawk cruise missiles into aspirin factories in.. omg, where was it???

Afghanistan and The Sudan..., to take out a completely imaginary threat to American security there?...

The Taliban pose no real danger to the USA... Heck, 3 months earlier Clinton turned down an offer, from The Sudan, to hand Osama Bin Laden over to American Interests... in 1997....

ah but if only... Oh well screw it, it was an inside job anyway right?

Posted by: Mbritt | March 14, 2009 12:57 AM

Oh well screw it, it was an inside job anyway right?

Ask your fellow conspiracy-nuts; you'd be surprised how many birfers are also 9/11 troofers.

Posted by: Raging Bee | March 14, 2009 1:07 AM

Mbritt(sorry for getting your name wrong in my earlier post)

You honestly think the world's opinion was that low of America because of Clinton? You think he damaged the image of the President? You think somehow Bush's image to the world is better?

"Incidentally, you mean peace like Somalia, Serbia, Rwanda, and 1.2 billion dollars worth of tomahawk cruise missiles into aspirin factories in.. omg, where was it???"

Good that you recall when Clinton was trying to take action against terrorists the Republicans down played it. Funny how the "Baby Food Factory" just happened to have an sign in english on it when the reporters showed up. I mean imagine faulty intelligence leading a president to attacking something that wasn't really a threat. I guess it's only positive if you are a republican president and you start a war instead of bombing a factory.

"The Taliban pose no real danger to the USA... Heck, 3 months earlier Clinton turned down an offer, from The Sudan, to hand Osama Bin Laden over to American "

You don't seriously believe this right? This is a joke right? You know that this story has been proven to be made up right?

"Its apples and oranges, it's a completely irrelevant survey you are sighting."

It's the same source, different years, as is used by the Heritage foundation in it's map. Hardly irrelevant.

"This survey only accounts for the *acquirement of new recruits by **division** relative to states*"

No the states are part of the "division" ie North East, South. They aren't talking about the 10th Mountain Division and has nothing to do with their duty station. It's where they entered service, where they went to MEPS after the recruiter. Very close to where their home is generally speaking.

"And all of this, bear in mind, is by census surveys of where they *live* at the time of enlistment, not where they are born,(and presumably raised)..."

Well at least you now accept it's where they enlist, not where they are stationed.

Your assumtions. People are born and raised one place then for some reason travel out of state to enlist in the military.

My assumtion. People enlist close to where they live. I could care less about where they are born.

Since there are no numbers for either, according to your link I'll stick with my simpler assumtion as being more likely to be true.

"A bunch of stuff about which states go where and your pick for the numbers"

Still no where near your 78% of the military is from southern states.

Posted by: Laen | March 14, 2009 4:57 AM

Laen,

>>>You honestly think the world's opinion was that low of America because of Clinton? You think he damaged the image of the President? You think somehow Bush's image to the world is better?

From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both: but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved. ~Niccolo Machiavelli

>>>Good that you recall when Clinton was trying to take action against terrorists the Republicans down played it. Funny how the "Baby Food Factory" just happened to have an sign in english on it when the reporters showed up. I mean imagine faulty intelligence leading a president to attacking something that wasn't really a threat. I guess it's only positive if you are a republican president and you start a war instead of bombing a factory.

You have mistaken my sarcasm for righteous indignation.

My point is that the Taliban were a threat, yet that somehow they were not only 3 months before when Osama's a$$ was offered by Sudan.

>>>You don't seriously believe this right? This is a joke right? You know that this story has been proven to be made up right?

Oh please you aren't going to mince the tired old semantic argument that since they offered him to Saudi Authorities, they "weren't" Offering him to us, are you?

That is so weak and pathetic, if they weren't offering him to us, why even bother involving the USA? why even tell Clinton through back door channels? why would Clinton, and i quote, "beg the Saudis to take him"

So week, so tired, he admitted it, its on tape, he said it, accept it and get over it.

>>No the states are part of the "division" ie North East, South. They aren't talking about the 10th Mountain Division and has nothing to do with their duty station. It's where they entered service, where they went to MEPS after the recruiter.

Recruitment Division, i never said anything about troop division., you misinterpret that on your own, "***It's where they entered service,***"... isn't that verbatim what i said? You do at least admit Delaware, Maryland, and DC have no business being calculated as for the South, right?

>>>Well at least you now accept it's where they enlist, not where they are stationed.

Spoken as though i had made some claim earlier that where they were stationed was in some way relevant to an argument.. I made no such claim at any point, ever, that is an open lie on your part.

>>>Your assumtions. People are born and raised one place then for some reason travel out of state to enlist in the military.

Nope, i never said once it mattered where they enlisted, in fact it doesn't, that map would me *more accurate than yours* ...What *your* map shows is where they, and again, for the third time... ***ENTERED SERVICE*** Just like you typed up top there.

Doesn't matter if they *enlisted* in Alabama, New York or Guam, It's where they were officially received into the service, and that, as I'm sure you will admit, is More often than not, no where *near* their point of recruitment, they bus and fly them all over the nation for that.

>>>My assumtion. People enlist close to where they live. I could care less about where they are born.

Your 'assumtion' might be relevant if these numbers reflected where a person enlisted at, they don't

>>>Since there are no numbers for either, according to your link I'll stick with my simpler assumtion as being more likely to be true.

your numbers are wrong, even buy your own sheet.

You don't find it even remotely interesting that you calculate the number of people in the entire US military as being 127,423??.....Or could it be that you are looking at a report for one year, during a 2 war deployment, while most of the boys are already over seas, and recruitment is down, to skew the numbers in your favor??

When in fact there are 1,426,713 personnel are currently on active duty and a further 1,259,000 in the seven reserve components...

Tell you what, when you get that *minor* discrepancy worked out, call me and let me know what happened to the other 2,558,290 men, I'm sure their families will be eager to hear they are OK.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 14, 2009 9:25 AM

Robin Levett,

You have a scenario where in some fantasy, Alaska would side with the Federal government in a states right issue?

Jeepers, I'm supposed to be the lunatic around here man.

Posted by: Mbritt | March 14, 2009 9:41 AM

Laen,

"it is far safer to be feared than loved. ~Niccolo Machiavelli"

You assume they feared Bush, not thought he was an incompetent buffoon.

"You have mistaken my sarcasm for righteous indignation."

No thought you might actually give credit where it was due, my mistake.

"Oh please you aren't going to mince the tired old semantic argument that since they offered him to Saudi Authorities, they "weren't" Offering him to us, are you?... So week, so tired, he admitted it, its on tape, he said it, accept it and get over it."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_pass_up_a_chance_1.html

The important part.

"It is here that things get murky. Erwa claims that he offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no "credible offers" to hand over bin Laden. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence" that Erwa had ever made such an offer. "

"I made no such claim at any point, ever, that is an open lie on your part."

Orginally you said.

"This throws a disproportionate number to the states with multiple military bases, "

If you aren't talking about units, then what were you talking about?

"Doesn't matter if they *enlisted* in Alabama, New York or Guam, It's where they were officially received into the service, and that, as I'm sure you will admit, is More often than not, no where *near* their point of recruitment, they bus and fly them all over the nation for that."

No, they don't. You are officially enlisted in MEPS. They fly, bus or get dropped off at the closest MEPS station. I don't know a single soldier who left their state to swear in. By the time they go to basic or OSUT, they are already enlisted.

"Your 'assumtion' might be relevant if these numbers reflected where a person enlisted at, they don't"

They show exactly that.

"your numbers are wrong, even buy your own sheet."

No my numbers showed the regions of enlistment, that's all. However you want to break it down far less than 78% of the military came from the south.

"You don't find it even remotely interesting that you calculate the number of people in the entire US military as being 127,423??.....Or could it be that you are looking at a report for one year, during a 2 war deployment, while most of the boys are already over seas, and recruitment is down, to skew the numbers in your favor??"

No I calculate the number of enlistments. You think that because we were at war less southern "boys" want to enlist that only the northerners would still be enlisting? Interesting, but I doubt it. I considered it enlistment numbers for that year. You have some evidence that shows it to be an outlier? You have some evidence to show that every other year more than 78% of recruits come from the south? I'm quite aware of the actual number of people in the military. I showed a single years enlistment numbers, they show a distribution completely out of line with your comment. Do you have any numbers to show you comment to be true? Even the Heritage Foundation's chart doesn't back you claim, and it's still flawed because it's a ratio based on education levels.

"Additionally, 78% of the current U.S. Armed Forces hails from Former Confederate States."

We'll go back to the start then, please provide proof.

As for the snide comments at the end, you probably don't want to get into a discussion about who cares more about the military and it's families with me.

Posted by: Laen | March 14, 2009 10:45 AM

Can one conspire to commit treason? -DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | March 14, 2009 11:05 AM

@Mbritt:

The problem with your argument on cotton is that the rest of the civilised world had no problem managing without US cotton. They subsisted on the record crops just before the outbreak of war while creating new sources of raw material. Very little CSA cotton got out during the war of southern treason.

Posted by: Robin Levett | March 14, 2009 1:16 PM

yikes, "equivalencies."

Posted by: danrotter@gmail.com | March 15, 2009 12:38 AM

Against the usual mindless liberals on this page, I have to say that Mbritt called you on your usual unfounded charges of racism and you came back with nothing of value.

In the narrow definition of the term, that one thinks of one's race as being superior to another's - he never made any such claim that you could point to. When he wrote "we are all racist," if you want to apply that to him as evidence of his racism, then you must accept the entirety of the claim as it applies to you as well, in which case, your accusations are pretty pointless.

In a related vein, whoever it was that claimed that Mbritt found a compliant woman and hopes he doesn't hit her around much was certainly showing the most racism in assuming that only a "substandard" African-American woman would ever marry a guy like him.

****
Constitutional amendments: The amendments starting and ending national prohibition prove that we can get things wrong and that the current version of the USC is just that - a current version. The "miracle" of its creation is that it embodies a pretty effective means of peacefully working through the conflicts. We've had only one civil war, after all, and we don't cotton much to national strikes or tanks in the streets. So, relatively speaking, we do a much better job even than the Socialist Utopias of Europe at providing ways for our citizens and non-citizens to express themselves.

*****
While I have earlier been educated on the veracity of the claim that the MAJOR reason for the formation of the CSA was to protect slavery - at the abuse of the very important concept of state's rights - the evidence is in that Lincoln's freeing of slaves was primarily a -political- tool to keep Europe from supporting the CSA.

****
Very few people overseas gave much concern to Clinton's actual sexual antics, relative to those of their own politicians. What was disappointing to me, at least, was that he felt the need to lie, and for his wife to lie, when he was caught with his pants down. He should have just admitted it from the outset and called out those who cared as being excessively prudish.

****
Invasions of sovereign nations during the Clinton years were no more effective at protecting the US from terrorism than were those of the recent Bush presidency and no more legal - in the sense that the Legislative Branch didn't do their job of holding the Executive's feet to the fire of the Constitution. "UBL" (because it was spelled "Usama bin Laden") was a known entity during Clinton's term and nothing was done about him, thereby pushing the problem off to the next administration - something Democrats do just as often as Republicans.

****
The historical evidence shows that any democracy or republic over about 50 million people is too unwieldy to effectively protect the rights of the individual against the "tyranny of the majority." As a mental exercise/utopian fantasy, I would advocate some sort of rational reworking of all the national borders to make smaller, more nimble governments and economies. BUT I'd much rather work on opening our terrible version of democracy to more political parties so that we can get away from the false dichotomy of liberal/conservative.

The most important factor of the USA's quick economic growth even in the Colonial Era was the fact that each State was more like a country, in terms of the variety of laws and their ability to specialize in production and freely trade with one another. The fact that each State is -not- identical in its laws and the way it does business is the USA's biggest asset.

****
Judging a State or a Nation even by behavior of a majority of its residents is an associative fallacy of the lowest order. The whole point of our version of government is that each of us has the right to be judged on our own merits, regardless of the behavior of our elected officials.

That is why I despise both self-styled liberals and conservatives - they generally spend so much time on "us vs. them" that there are few people left to work together for the benefit of all.

Posted by: SantinoRockThrower | March 15, 2009 10:27 AM

@SantinoRockThrower:

So the Civil War was a states' rights issue, in which the CSA took the states' rights position on principle? Please, then, explain the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 to me. Who pressed for the repeal of that law?

Posted by: Robin Levett | March 15, 2009 12:41 PM

I dipped in here and there and skimmed a few f mbritt's comments. What a fucking idiot. I wonder if he's mroberts's sock puppet. I think folks like him and mroberts deserve their own classification in the DSM-IV; I propose "Idiot-Pedant".

Posted by: democommie | March 15, 2009 5:57 PM

norris is brave only on tv. virtual reality only...

Posted by: michael korn | March 16, 2009 8:26 AM

We have the right to overthrow the Federal Government and put in its place the original government, Washington wanted us to have.

The Federal government has grown over its constitutional bounderies, whereas the States under the 10th Amendment have the rights that trump the Federal Government. I agree, its time for action. When one southern state seceeds, you can guarantee the rest of the South will rise again.

Sound the Bugle for Dixie, you will see me fighting in the First Virginia. Remember Robert E. Lee, the father of this great nation.

Finally, You DONT FUCK WITH CHUCK. Rumors, you say about Chuck? No no, they are real, and his round house kicks will destroy all in his path.

Posted by: JMoney | March 17, 2009 2:32 PM

JMoney:

"Sound the Bugle for Dixie, you will see me fighting in the First Virginia. Remember Robert E. Lee, the father of this great nation."

Well, that would make you a traitor, but then again you're probably already a delusional, racist homomphobe, so that's not much of a reach for a fella like you.

Posted by: democommie | March 17, 2009 6:11 PM

"Damn you Obamaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You took my country away from meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!" -Dumb Redneck

Posted by: Bobby james McGruder | April 17, 2009 12:57 PM

Wow, I missed the stupidity of this thread earlier, not sure how I managed that.

We have the right to overthrow the Federal Government and put in its place the original government, Washington wanted us to have.

This is called "treason" look it up. Also, look in any US History book under "Civil War" it didn't turn out so well for you guys that time, it wouldn't if you got your way this time either.

The Federal government has grown over its constitutional bounderies, whereas the States under the 10th Amendment have the rights that trump the Federal Government.

BUZZZZ, Constitution, law of the land, try actually reading it. States do not "trump" the federal government. Also the 10th amendment is limited by both the 14th amendment and the aspects of Article I, Article II, and Article III. Sorry, you don't get to read parts of the Constitution (if you even have) and ignore the rest.

I agree, its time for action. When one southern state seceeds, you can guarantee the rest of the South will rise again.

Is that because shit floats?

Sound the Bugle for Dixie, you will see me fighting in the First Virginia. Remember Robert E. Lee, the father of this great nation.

Again, treason, and again, look at history. 1st Virginia got its ass kicked by the 2nd Wisconsin, 54th Massachusetts, 20th Maine, etc. History has a tendency to repeat itself...

Finally, You DONT FUCK WITH CHUCK. Rumors, you say about Chuck? No no, they are real, and his round house kicks will destroy all in his path.

'course Bruce Lee made him famous by kicking his ass.

I seriously have to wonder if this was actually a poe, but it is so much fun to rile up secessionists, when all two or three of their brain cells get wound up, they say some funny shit.

Posted by: dogmeatIB | June 28, 2009 7:10 PM