SeekLiberty
07-02-2007, 09:56 PM
So there's an idea! Why don't we kick out the United States, Inc., a main source of our problem, out of these united States of America? They're the only non-state of the Union you know! :D
Of course, as the article suggests, as "makes a lot of sense," that better than walling up our southern State borders, we can always create a bordered wall around the District of Criminals to protect these several States from DC trying to legislate and enforce unConstitutional laws down our throat. ;)
- SL
http://blogevolve.com/a-wall-around-washington-d-c
Every so often a few people become so frustrated with the heated debate over some idiotic Federal Government policy proposal that they will utter or write something, tongue-in-check, that, while it is utterly off the wall in terms of ever receiving serious consideration, actually makes a lot of sense.
Back in the 1960s a number of people in western states became so frustrated with the Federal Government's public lands policies that a movement, which later became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, began in a number of Western states to take greater control over public lands within their borders. The problem was, and still is, the fact that much of the land in states laying west of the Mississippi River is controlled by the Federal Government. Recent statistics show that, in Arizona, where I live, 44% of the state's land is owned by the Federal Government and in neighboring Nevada, 82% of the land in that state is owned by the Federal Government.
In reality, the Sagebrush Rebellion never amounted to more than a series of resolutions passed periodically by state legislatures, periodic petitions to Congress from state governments and conservative think tanks, newspaper editorials and the creation of inter-state government groups which periodically met to discuss the issue. By the late 1970s citizens and state governments nationwide were becoming more and more upset with increasing meddling in affairs by Congress and Washington bureaucrats. As a result, at one gathering of one of these interstate committees, a number of Eastern state legislatures sent observers to the meeting. As the tirades against Washington abuses became more heated, the topic of succession, which until then had remained unmentioned and kept way in the back of everyone's minds (after all, it had failed the last time it had been tried).
However, at some point, one or more brave souls dared to utter the previously unmentioned word and the debate began to turn toward succession. At this point a delegate from an Eastern state spoke up and pointed out that, since almost all of the states in the union were represented at the meeting, succession didn't really make any sense – after all, how could we succeed from ourselves? However, there was one non-state that was noticeably absent, and totally unwelcome to boot, and that was the District of Columbia – a.k.a. Washington, DC.
It was suggested that, rather than the united states trying to succeed from the United States of America, just kick the non-state that was the source of the problem out of the United States. Everyone had a good laugh at this brilliant suggestion and then returned home. A couple of years later a former Western governor, Ronald Reagan was elected President and federal meddling was moderated a bit causing the Sagebrush Rebellion to fade into history.
The Sagebrush Rebellion is history, but meddling from Washington remains a problem. The latest crazy, and expensive, idea from Washington is a fence along the nation's southern border to halt illegal immigration. Again it is east of the Mississippi bureaucrats and Congressmen dictating policy in our states. Many, especially in Texas, oppose the idea for a variety of reasons including the expense and impracticality (after all the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall and the Berlin Wall all failed to keep the intended people out – or in, as was the case with the Berlin Wall).
This past Tuesday (June 19, 2007) the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the Texas border city of McAllen, Steve Ahlenius, got so fed up with the Feds refusal to even discuss fence plans with local officials and owners across whose land the wall is to be built (much of the land in Texas on the Mexican border is private, not public) that he sent a press release, via email to 140 news outlets across the nation. In the press release he suggested that, if a wall is to be built it should be built around Washington, D.C. because, in his words, there is a “... need to protect ourselves from bad legislation, bad ideas and a waste of tax money,”
While tongue-in-cheek, the suggestion actually makes a lot of sense. Given a recent CNN poll showing public confidence in Congress has reached an all time low of 14% (11 points below the President), the idea might actually take hold – assuming it is reported. So far, my search has revealed that only Univision, a couple of small local Texas newspapers and Fox News (say what you want about Fox, despite most of their commentators being strong supporters on the air of the border fence, they reported this while others seem to have ignored it) have bothered to report this proposal. As former President Reagan used to say, “Government is not the solution – it is the problem”.
Of course, as the article suggests, as "makes a lot of sense," that better than walling up our southern State borders, we can always create a bordered wall around the District of Criminals to protect these several States from DC trying to legislate and enforce unConstitutional laws down our throat. ;)
- SL
http://blogevolve.com/a-wall-around-washington-d-c
Every so often a few people become so frustrated with the heated debate over some idiotic Federal Government policy proposal that they will utter or write something, tongue-in-check, that, while it is utterly off the wall in terms of ever receiving serious consideration, actually makes a lot of sense.
Back in the 1960s a number of people in western states became so frustrated with the Federal Government's public lands policies that a movement, which later became known as the Sagebrush Rebellion, began in a number of Western states to take greater control over public lands within their borders. The problem was, and still is, the fact that much of the land in states laying west of the Mississippi River is controlled by the Federal Government. Recent statistics show that, in Arizona, where I live, 44% of the state's land is owned by the Federal Government and in neighboring Nevada, 82% of the land in that state is owned by the Federal Government.
In reality, the Sagebrush Rebellion never amounted to more than a series of resolutions passed periodically by state legislatures, periodic petitions to Congress from state governments and conservative think tanks, newspaper editorials and the creation of inter-state government groups which periodically met to discuss the issue. By the late 1970s citizens and state governments nationwide were becoming more and more upset with increasing meddling in affairs by Congress and Washington bureaucrats. As a result, at one gathering of one of these interstate committees, a number of Eastern state legislatures sent observers to the meeting. As the tirades against Washington abuses became more heated, the topic of succession, which until then had remained unmentioned and kept way in the back of everyone's minds (after all, it had failed the last time it had been tried).
However, at some point, one or more brave souls dared to utter the previously unmentioned word and the debate began to turn toward succession. At this point a delegate from an Eastern state spoke up and pointed out that, since almost all of the states in the union were represented at the meeting, succession didn't really make any sense – after all, how could we succeed from ourselves? However, there was one non-state that was noticeably absent, and totally unwelcome to boot, and that was the District of Columbia – a.k.a. Washington, DC.
It was suggested that, rather than the united states trying to succeed from the United States of America, just kick the non-state that was the source of the problem out of the United States. Everyone had a good laugh at this brilliant suggestion and then returned home. A couple of years later a former Western governor, Ronald Reagan was elected President and federal meddling was moderated a bit causing the Sagebrush Rebellion to fade into history.
The Sagebrush Rebellion is history, but meddling from Washington remains a problem. The latest crazy, and expensive, idea from Washington is a fence along the nation's southern border to halt illegal immigration. Again it is east of the Mississippi bureaucrats and Congressmen dictating policy in our states. Many, especially in Texas, oppose the idea for a variety of reasons including the expense and impracticality (after all the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall and the Berlin Wall all failed to keep the intended people out – or in, as was the case with the Berlin Wall).
This past Tuesday (June 19, 2007) the President of the Chamber of Commerce of the Texas border city of McAllen, Steve Ahlenius, got so fed up with the Feds refusal to even discuss fence plans with local officials and owners across whose land the wall is to be built (much of the land in Texas on the Mexican border is private, not public) that he sent a press release, via email to 140 news outlets across the nation. In the press release he suggested that, if a wall is to be built it should be built around Washington, D.C. because, in his words, there is a “... need to protect ourselves from bad legislation, bad ideas and a waste of tax money,”
While tongue-in-cheek, the suggestion actually makes a lot of sense. Given a recent CNN poll showing public confidence in Congress has reached an all time low of 14% (11 points below the President), the idea might actually take hold – assuming it is reported. So far, my search has revealed that only Univision, a couple of small local Texas newspapers and Fox News (say what you want about Fox, despite most of their commentators being strong supporters on the air of the border fence, they reported this while others seem to have ignored it) have bothered to report this proposal. As former President Reagan used to say, “Government is not the solution – it is the problem”.