(on Drudge) Ron Paul: 'Secession is a deeply American principle'...

[jct74]

middle column, halfway down

http://drudgereport.com/






direct link to article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84058.html

[jct74]

retweet it:
https://twitter.com/DRUDGE_REPORT/status/270662771136397315

[nasaal]

That sort of thing will not play over well. It will make the liberty movement look like backward people who hate the US.

[ILUVRP]

i agree that secession is a american thing to do , but lets see how it would would work .

1) texas is the only red state that gets less back from the feds than it sends to washington , sends $1.00 , gets back 94 cents, all other red states get back more from the feds than they send , some of which get 4-5 times more back than they send.

2) i was in the military 8 1/2 yrs then worked in defence plant for 30 yrs , so what would happen is texas would lose all its defence contracts as all military contracts must be given in america, we could also close all military bases in texas and va hospitals.

3) people in texas would need passports to get out , people going in would need passports.

4) texans would have to keep up their own ==freeways--bridges--dams--.

5) america would be back to 98 senators and less house members and all their staffs.

6) texas could issue their own currency and bonds , i don't know about all the members of the military from texas , i guess they would have to move to a real state in order to stay in the service.

i am sure this list could get much longer .


i think the bottom line is all states need america more than america needs them , what would the governors be then , kings or presidents . they couldn't be governors of a state.

[erowe1]

I like how he says that both people and states should be able to secede.

[erowe1]

i agree that secession is a american thing to do , but lets see how it would would work .

1) texas is the only red state that gets less back from the feds than it sends to washington , sends $1.00 , gets back 94 cents, all other red states get back more from the feds than they send , some of which get 4-5 times more back than they send.

Would you rather have $1 cash, or $4 worth of something the federal government wants you to have?



2) i was in the military 8 1/2 yrs then worked in defence plant for 30 yrs , so what would happen is texas would lose all its defence contracts as all military contracts must be given in america, we could also close all military bases in texas and va hospitals.
Which would be better for Texas's economy, to have all that capital and labor go toward the production of things that do no one any good, or to make things people actually want in response to the incentives of the free market?



3) people in texas would need passports to get out , people going in would need passports.
Only if Texas decides they want to do that. It doesn't seem very practical to me.



4) texans would have to keep up their own ==freeways--bridges--dams--.
Right. So rather than send your money to Washington DC, to get funneled through layers of federal bureaucracy, just to come back to be spent according to federral dictates on something in your state, you just keep it in your state to spend the way your state wants, and probably more efficiently.



5) america would be back to 98 senators and less house members and all their staffs.
Sounds good.



i think the bottom line is all states need america more than america needs them , what would the governors be then , kings or presidents . they couldn't be governors of a state.
I think that's ridiculous. I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't want to secede from the union. The federal government does nothing good for the states and plenty of harm.

[ILUVRP]

i just used texas as an example , america as a union of states is the best if washington was run right , but w/o someone like ron paul as president it will never be run right and i see no one like ron paul stepping up.

[erowe1]

i just used texas as an example , america as a union of states is the best if washington was run right , but w/o someone like ron paul as president it will never be run right and i see no one like ron paul stepping up.

I think you have to take for granted that Washington will not be run right. And if by some amazing accident of history someone like RP ever got elected president, his reforms would last a very short time. His successor would bring back business as usual.

[specsaregood]

i think the bottom line is all states need america more than america needs them , what would the governors be then , kings or presidents . they couldn't be governors of a state.

what a myopic pov.

[Athan]

i agree that secession is a american thing to do , but lets see how it would would work .

1) texas is the only red state that gets less back from the feds than it sends to washington , sends $1.00 , gets back 94 cents, all other red states get back more from the feds than they send , some of which get 4-5 times more back than they send.

2) i was in the military 8 1/2 yrs then worked in defence plant for 30 yrs , so what would happen is texas would lose all its defence contracts as all military contracts must be given in america, we could also close all military bases in texas and va hospitals.

3) people in texas would need passports to get out , people going in would need passports.

4) texans would have to keep up their own ==freeways--bridges--dams--.

5) america would be back to 98 senators and less house members and all their staffs.

6) texas could issue their own currency and bonds , i don't know about all the members of the military from texas , i guess they would have to move to a real state in order to stay in the service.

i am sure this list could get much longer .


i think the bottom line is all states need america more than america needs them , what would the governors be then , kings or presidents . they couldn't be governors of a state.
They would be PRESIDENT of Texas. Everything you wrote isn't bad for Texas. It's just restructuring.

[FSP-Rebel]

As much as I am for secession for my own personal reasons it's hard to overlook the fact that state and local police can't compete with the hardware the Feds have if they chose to employ it on us. Plus, the shock to the system of no social security checks, medicare payments, or food stamps/welfare for the unfortunate would be the equivalent to an economic crisis until the lack of burden of taxes and regulations can be flushed in, and even then I'm not so sure. I'd prefer nullification as a safer alternative path.

[July]

A state wouldn't necessarily have to actually leave. The idea is just that it creates checks and balances on centralized power. DC would prefer that Texas stay (for example), so that gives Texas some leverage if DC starts overstepping their authority.

The main problem I think is that so many Americans have lost appreciation for a checks and balance system, when it comes to the president and party in power. There is this general attitude that since the President holds the highest office in the land, and since he is elected by the majority, he has ultimate authority... When congress is in gridlock, they are thought to be obstructing business, not checking power. Hence the need for more and more executive powers.

[Dutch]

From a European perspective, as one who lives in a country that went through phases of being totally sovereign, to being engulfed into the European Union in Brussels (which can be very well compared to the Federal Govt in the USA) I can tell you that being sovereign is much better. If only for 1 single reason: the multiple layers of bureaucracy are swallowing up billions that are adding to our countries' deficit (which citizens like me have to pay for) and the resulting european laws are very often not locally practicle. Ok, that may be 2 reasons. But bottom line, we pay more for people that know nothing about our lives, and are deciding over our lives.

I say: secede if you can!

Dutch

[erowe1]

As much as I am for secession for my own personal reasons it's hard to overlook the fact that state and local police can't compete with the hardware the Feds have if they chose to employ it on us. Plus, the shock to the system of no social security checks, medicare payments, or food stamps/welfare for the unfortunate would be the equivalent to an economic crisis until the lack of burden of taxes and regulations can be flushed in, and even then I'm not so sure. I'd prefer nullification as a safer alternative path.

Yeah, I wouldn't be for fighting a war against the feds to secede.

But that wouldn't be as easy for them to do as it was 150 years ago. They wouldn't have the support of many of their own citizens, and they wouldn't be able to control their access to pro-secessionist information.

[PattyFromTexas]

Well I have to say I strongly disagree with the idea of secession, I think it's the mother of all horrible, terrible, awful ideas. One fact seems to elude all of you talking about secession, and that is, that the federal government would never in a million years allow a peaceful secession. Plus there are alot more people who want to stay part of the US, than there are those who want to secede. This is an idea that if acted upon would lead to bloodshed, and you would lose. The federal government has more guns, more body armor, more mortars, more drones, more soldiers, more everything that matters in a fight. Not to mention the fact that they have records of pretty much everyone who even owns a gun. If they show up on your doorstep and demand you give them your guns, you'll do it, or end up, injured, and in handcuffs, or worse. So you see. This really is an atrociously bad idea.

[PattyFromTexas]

The federal government would kill you all without blinking an eye, and most of the people in this country would say YAY, those terrorist sympathizers deserve what they get. And they'll react that way because they've been brainwashed by television to think that way.

[erowe1]

there are alot more people who want to stay part of the US, than there are those who want to secede.

I think this is true. But I can't fathom why. If we set out to convincing most Americans that secession would be good for them, it should be an easy enough task. There are plenty of reasons to want to get out from under the federal government, and no reasons to want to stay under it.

[July]

Actual succession is not going to happen any time soon, not anywhere close. What good might come from discussion about the idea though, is perhaps more people realizing their states do have 10th amendment rights to nullify unconstitutional laws.

[erowe1]

Actual succession is not going to happen any time soon, not anywhere close. What good might come from discussion about the idea though, is perhaps more people realizing their states do have 10th amendment rights to nullify unconstitutional laws.

It seems that at some point one of two things is inevitable. Either there will be actual secession, or there will be further expansion and centralization of government until there is finally a single regime over the whole globe.

The current regime in Washington DC can't go on as it is forever. And if something can't last, then it won't.

[Tod]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396084-VIDEO-TRAILER-Lincoln-the-Movie-%28Steven-Spielberg%29-Review-by-%28The-New-American%29&p=4740669#post4740669



What if the confederate states had declared secession, but instead of going to war, had just engaged in civil disobedience in the manner of Ghandi? Would they have been more successful?

[tremendoustie]

Well I have to say I strongly disagree with the idea of secession, I think it's the mother of all horrible, terrible, awful ideas. One fact seems to elude all of you talking about secession, and that is, that the federal government would never in a million years allow a peaceful secession.

Why do you assume that?

If people in a state vote and decide to leave, do you really think the feds are going to send in tanks and murder peaceful people, in this modern day of instant communication, where everyone has friends and family everywhere?

I think the PR would be catastrophic, where they to attempt such a thing.

[tremendoustie]

The federal government would kill you all without blinking an eye, and most of the people in this country would say YAY, those terrorist sympathizers deserve what they get. And they'll react that way because they've been brainwashed by television to think that way.

I don't think so. Not if you were 100%, completely, transparently peaceful. What's more, if a state were to vote to become independent, there would be lots of people all over the US sympathizing with that view.

The federal government is going to get a lot more broke, and a lot more like the grinch than santa claus, before long. We need to plant these ideas in people's heads now, even if they're not ready for it, so that when the @#$@ hits the fan, more people react in the right kinds of ways.

[July]

It seems that at some point one of two things is inevitable. Either there will be actual secession, or there will be further expansion and centralization of government until there is finally a single regime over the whole globe.

The current regime in Washington DC can't go on as it is forever. And if something can't last, then it won't.

I agree. Though I don't think enough Americans are quite ready for the idea of succession yet. The fact that this story about the petitions online is getting some media attention is a small first step, perhaps, in talking about it in theory, and opening up discussion about what rights states do have under the current system.

[erowe1]

I agree. Though I don't think enough Americans are quite ready for the idea of succession yet. The fact that this story about the petitions online is getting some media attention is a small first step, perhaps, in talking about it in theory, and opening up discussion about what rights states do have under the current system.

The thing is, at some unpredictable point, things will change one way or the other very rapidly, whether Americans are ready for it or not. People will find themselves supporting things out of desperation that they wouldn't have before.

In the mean time, we need to educate them to try to make it so that those things they throw their support to when that day comes are the right kinds of things.

[July]

The thing is, at some unpredictable point, things will change one way or the other very rapidly, whether Americans are ready for it or not. People will find themselves supporting things out of desperation that they wouldn't have before.

In the mean time, we need to educate them to try to make it so that those things they throw their support to when that day comes are the right kinds of things.

I agree on taking opportunities like this to educate, and to keep the education going. At some point when the musical chairs stop, we will be better off.

[muzzled dogg]

Wow there are some real statists on this forum

[specsaregood]

Wow there are some real statists on this forum

Oh noes! He called out the statists boogeyman, run and hide ya'll.

[PattyFromTexas]

"Not if you were 100%, completely, transparently peaceful" I believe this is the only way such an idea could work. I know of many instances where peaceful nonviolent civil disobedience brought about change. I don't think America is ready for this idea though. The average comfort level has not deteriorated enough to budge the average citizen to make an effort towards anything but the nearest snack. Americans are not motivated.

[torchbearer]

If someone keeps you from leaving somewhere... against your will. they are guilty of false imprisonment.
its a crime.

[tremendoustie]

Wow there are some real statists on this forum

seriously

[Vanilluxe]

I have ask this puzzling questions that all pro-seccesionist have trouble answering on other threads-

I have just one question for all the pro-seccessionist .... ready?

What happens if a city, county, indian reservation, or place in a seceding state wants to stay in the Union?

Stumped?

[ClydeCoulter]

I have ask this puzzling questions that all pro-seccesionist have trouble answering on other threads-

I have just one question for all the pro-seccessionist .... ready?

What happens if a city, county, indian reservation, or place in a seceding state wants to stay in the Union?

Stumped?

In any secession, there will be some that don't want to, some that do. Did everyone in the southern states want to secede, or did everyone in the colonies want to secede from England?

edit: It's usually to get out from under an oppressive regime, no?

[Expatriate]

I have ask this puzzling questions that all pro-seccesionist have trouble answering on other threads-

I have just one question for all the pro-seccessionist .... ready?

What happens if a city, county, indian reservation, or place in a seceding state wants to stay in the Union?

Stumped?

That's why I'd be more in favor of individual secession, although it would be tricky to pull off.

Still though, a state voting to secede democratically and take some dissidents with them seems to me a lesser evil than a country holding onto territories or states that want to leave by force. But I'm generally in favor of anything that decentralizes authority.

[Czolgosz]

Your freedom will require blood. Period.

[Vanilluxe]

That's why I'd be more in favor of individual secession, although it would be tricky to pull off.

Still though, a state voting to secede democratically and take some dissidents with them seems to me a lesser evil than a country holding onto territories or states that want to leave by force. But I'm generally in favor of anything that decentralizes authority.

Isn't it unconstitutional for a government to deny a U.S. citizen of its right from their country they consider? Isn't the right of the minority going to be violated by the tyrannical majority the same thing we followers of liberty oppose too? Is is not right for Native Americans in their reservations and lands to have the freedom to secede from the seceding state? If a state secedes, would you consider a state joining another country say like Canada or Mexico?

[PattyFromTexas]

Your freedom will require blood. Period. This will not happen, simply because the comfort level has not deteriorated enough to motivate the average citizen.

[erowe1]

I have ask this puzzling questions that all pro-seccesionist have trouble answering on other threads-

I have just one question for all the pro-seccessionist .... ready?

What happens if a city, county, indian reservation, or place in a seceding state wants to stay in the Union?

Stumped?

A couple of options. They could try to join the Union as a new state. Or the seceding state, rather than seceding as a state, could just secede from the state, and leave whichever parts want to stay in the Union in place as the state, while they secede to become something else.

[erowe1]

..

[tremendoustie]

I have ask this puzzling questions that all pro-seccesionist have trouble answering on other threads-

I have just one question for all the pro-seccessionist .... ready?

What happens if a city, county, indian reservation, or place in a seceding state wants to stay in the Union?

Stumped?

They're welcome to continue to obey federal politicians and send them tax money, if they choose.

Ultimately, the right solution is individual liberty. No individual should be compelled against their will submit to any organization wishing to act like they own other people's lives and property. If any individual wishes to, they're certainly welcome to make that choice.

[tremendoustie]

Your freedom will require blood. Period.

"Note well: the secession of the Soviet republics did not lead to a bloody civil war. The secession of Slovenia did not lead to a bloody civil war. The secession of Norway from Sweden did not lead to a bloody civil war. There is nothing about secession in and of itself that need involve violence, as long as we are dealing with civilized people who understand that the best way to deal with political downsizing might not be to slaughter the people involved."

Full article: http://lewrockwell.com/woods/woods213.html (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Flewrockwell.com%2Fwoods%2Fwoo ds213.html&h=qAQFBGkg3&s=1)

[tremendoustie]

Isn't it unconstitutional for a government to deny a U.S. citizen of its right from their country they consider?

This sentence doesn't make sense.

Isn't the right of the minority going to be violated by the tyrannical majority the same thing we followers of liberty oppose too?

The minority has a right to obey and send their own money to federal politicians. I don't see why anyone would prevent them from doing this. They don't, however, have a right to force their neighbors to do so.


Is is not right for Native Americans in their reservations and lands to have the freedom to secede from the seceding state?

Sure, I would not prevent them from seceding from a seceding state.


If a state secedes, would you consider a state joining another country say like Canada or Mexico?

I certainly wouldn't want to; I'd want to remain independent. The Canadian and Mexican governments aren't much better than the US government.

[otherone]

Isn't it unconstitutional for a government to deny a U.S. citizen of its right from their country they consider? Isn't the right of the minority going to be violated by the tyrannical majority the same thing we followers of liberty oppose too? Is is not right for Native Americans in their reservations and lands to have the freedom to secede from the seceding state? If a state secedes, would you consider a state joining another country say like Canada or Mexico?

You've missed the point. As individuals, we have Rights. A basic Right is Freedom of association. If we are NOT permitted to leave, then we aren't actually free. This nation was intended to be a free union. How many ratifiers of the Constitution do you think would have signed if they were informed, "by the way, by signing this document your state may NEVER leave the union, that your single signature imprisons your fellow countrymen FOREVER."?
The question that should be asked is WHY do people want to secede? What happened?

[erowe1]

The question that should be asked is WHY do people want to secede? What happened?

I would instead ask, why have there ever been any people in any state who didn't want to secede?

[GunnyFreedom]

Would you rather have $1 cash, or $4 worth of something the federal government wants you to have?


This. I keep seeing the argument about red states getting more than they give, but how much of that 'getting' is for Federal programs that the State doesn't even really want to begin with? It seems to me that the reason red states get more than they give, is because Washington has to jerk dollars back and forth on a string to get those states to comply with stuff.