Here’s a map you may have seen, which is spreading around the blogosphere like wildfire:

http://kenlayne.com/new_map.jpg

Obviously, this is based on which states voted for Kerry, and which voted for Bush. It has been remarked, up here in Canada, that should this come to pass, our province of Alberta should join “Jesusland”:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2004/11/if_states_and_p.html#comments

One guy has even gone to the trouble of helping direct Democrat exiles to which parts of Canada they would find most congenial:

http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2004/11/a_canadian_guid.html#comments

*Yet the liberals remain utterly blind to this ongoing progress of liberalism.*

I don’t believe that this is true for liberal elites: they are quite aware of the continuing march leftward, but for tactical reasons they must act as if the roof is about to cave in on them. By sounding so alarmist they succeed in keeping the direction of cultural and political changes on a leftward tack.

Take the next Supreme Court appointment. Bush will likely succeed in getting a nominee confirmed, but not before the Left will put up a great battle, an Armageddon. If it’s Rhenquist’s seat, what’s the big deal? Bush will be replacing a conservative. (And there’s no guarantee that his replacement will be a conservative.) But the Left will make it sound as if the dark night of Nazism is about to descend on America. If the nominee succeeds, it will only be because of the Dem’s magnanimity, their willingness to “get along”, their bipartisanship. All this fuss will be made so that, when the next vacancy occurs, the Dems can say that they cooperated once, at great cost, but no more. Thus the status quo is maintained and no progress is made toward advancing conservative influence on the Court.

That is why, for the Court to change, it will take 6-8 years. Not only must a conservative president be elected in ’08, but conservatives must increase their majority in the Senate in ’06, ’08, and 2010. I regard the prospects for this happening as rather dim indeed.

Please, God…let them go in peace…wherever they want to go! Just get them out.

On Lucianne Goldberg(sp?)’s web site there was a quote from the Sean Hannity/Alan Colmes television program spoken by Mrs. Geraldine Ferraro that read: “You know what? Just let me make one point. You were talking about the map(red state/blue state election map of 2004)before. If indeed all those blue states all got together and seceded from the Union, think what would be left for those red states, nothing. There would be no educational system. You would have nothing. What would be left to you? I mean, where is all the talent in this country? It’s on both sides, the Northeast Corridor.”
Not only was this woman serious, but she also was speaking for quite a few of the effete elites that form the core of the present Democratic Party. They ACTUALLY believe this! Imagine the arrogance, the hubris, the colossal gall of these people. The self aggrandizement of these Kerry Klubbers is almost impossible to take seriously. But they are serious!

I guess we don’t have any schools or colleges in the red states. Plus if the blue states left and began running amok as liberals always do, you will see an exodus to the red states. Of course then, they would need to erect barriers to keep their talent from leaving.

Regarding Ferraro, not that there’s any actual intent to secede from the U.S., but certainly the secessionist emotion and belief system are there, as shown by the fact that this former candidate for vice president is saying, “We of the blue states do not need you of the red states. Our destiny is not linked with yours in a common country. We can exist independently of the rest of the United States.” That’s what she’s saying. For the first time in modern American history, liberals want to secede from America, and psychologically they already have seceded.

I wonder what the paleo-libertarians and neo-Confederates think about all this?

Whether or not this secessionist feeling is widespread, it sure has become a journalistic fad. Here’s another article from this morning: http://tinyurl.com/6avxb

The professoress interviewed, who moved to Vermont from a “red state” to feel more comfortable (though she is a New England native, probably of a college town or big city), says “They’d rather vote for fetuses and against gay people, rather than voting against war, with thousands dead, against guns, which we know kill people.”

Against *guns*?! Bloody hell, she’s in *Vermont*! The state’s concealed carry policy isn’t “shall issue”, it’s “why, go right ahead!”

Real Vermonters (who “Don’t Milk Goats”, according to a classic book by a native) would be better off if the Ben-and-Jerry types packed up for Central America.

I think it’s overreaction, but one in the right direction. If not outright secession, it would be a good idea to let the states take more responsiblity for themselves. If Massachusetts wants to have “gay marriage,” then by all means they should be free to do so. BUT, only on the condition that other states are under no obligation to recognize such lunacy as valid.

When you really get down to it, though, the northeastern states do seem to have more in common with the neighboring Canadian provinces than they do with a state like Texas, Alabama or Arizona. That in itself doesn’t justify secession, but it is something to consider.

Quasi-secession of the kind Mr. Copold suggests (while it may well be a good idea) would probably require a constitutional amendment to repeal the “full faith and credit” clause. I’m not sure such a thing has any more practical chance than the FMA itself, or an actual secession.

At the end of the day, what has to happen is that enough people have to realize (and fully absorb) the fact that liberal modernism is a false religion, and then repent. Last spring when I drove away from Massachusetts I had to be careful not to look back, lest I turn into a pillar of salt.

Vermont and New Hampshire were the last redoubt of the old Yankee conservatives. They’ve been inundated with the Ben and Jerry types now and will fade into clones of Massachusetts eventually. A terrible loss, really.

Rather than the “United States of Canada”, the new state should be named the Democratic People’s Republic of Kanuckistan. Ted Kennedy can be the chief commander of the U-boat fleet, with his extensive experience in piloting underwater Oldsmobiles.

Evidently a modern secessionist movement is a novel idea in most peoples’ minds. However, I’ve seen this coming for a long time and, frankly, I can’t understand why a) everyone is shocked, and b) no one takes the idea seriously. Look, we’re a divided nation. This notion that deep down we’re all on the same team is a bunch of crap uttered by people who don’t understand what they’re talking about. There’s lots of muddleheadedness in the middle, to be sure, but there are clearly two camps in America today, and their ideologies are based upon diametrically opposed principles. This fact, combined with the destruction of states’ rights and consolidation of all power in Washington, has turned every election into a huge, desperate struggle by both sides to impose their will upon the other across all 50 states. Leaving aside the question of who has the better case for being called True Americans historically, the fact is that we have come to a point of no compromise. Neither side can stomach living alongside the other, nor living under the others’ laws. It’s just that simple, and given that it *is* just that simple, it can only be a matter of time before an attempt at separation occurs. Either one side or the other will give up and go away, or there will be separation, or there will be another Civil War. That’s just the way it is.

Bubba hasn’t been around here for a while. What I see in his comment is his usual one-note explanation (namely the fact of national Union) for all political and cultural problems; his impatience with all other theories; his unappeasable hostility toward the post-1865 United States of America (or indeed, toward any belief in an underlying national unity, which he calls “a bunch of crap”); and his eager embrace of anything that promises to destroy it.

Oh dear! Drive away from Massachusetts? What a beautiful state and climate. I had the pleasure a few years ago of visiting that fair state; and I would love to live in the western portion even though the politics is goofy. But keep in mind I live in the relentlessly hot, humid climate of New Orleans. I mean it was 87 on November 1. Arctic fronts are usually mugged by Gulf air, derived from the same source that keeps Europe from freezing over as Russia does.

Mr. Auster’s reply to Bubba is perplexing. What Bubba appears to cite as the biggest problem is the massive usurpation of Federal power and the near obliteration of the reserved powers of the States.

Mr. Auster’s persistent refusal to consider the arguments, even theoretically—since that’s as far as it’s likely to get in the immediate future—of secession, as a possible response to the current situation is hard to grasp. He himself has declared that the present Federal government is no longer moral nor constitutional. At this point, we are forced to consider every possibility in rectifying a thoroughly unacceptable situation.

There is one group for example called “Christian Exodus” http://www.christianexodus.org which calls on Christians concerned over the moral and constitutional degregation of this former Republic to move to South Carolina with the goal of eventually capturing the local then State governments and effecting interposition leading to secession. Libertarians are advancing a similar plan with their “Free State” project in New Hampshire.

This is not the time to continue fighting the Civil War. We must do _something_, and no one at this site has advanced any solid proposal to reverse this trend. Even Matt’s “We must repent from liberalism” doesn’t cut it. (Who must? We here at VFR? The problem is that the liberals are the ones in power, and raw power has a way of trumping the will of the people.)

It would be wonderful if we could redress the extraconstitutional actions that have brought us to this low, via constitutional means, and we must continue to try by every means at our disposal. But our constitutional system has largely failed, because it has been seized by those who do not honor the document. So what are we to do, besides log in and make our daily complaints and chronicle the downfall of our civilization?

What exactly would Mr. Auster regard as justification for a State removing itself from this immoral and unconstitutional monolith? Is it not enough that the Federal courts have forbidden the States from protecting unborn children? Is it not enough that the States can no longer have laws against sodomy? Contraception? Sedition? Miscegenation? Pornography? Is it not enough that group privileges are now enshrined in the Constitution?

What would it take for Mr. Auster to reconsider? The Supreme Court striking down laws against pedophilia? What??

Mr. Auster seems to regard the Federal Union, though it no longer is held to the limits of the documents whereby the States established it, to be some kind of absolute, all moral or legal issues notwithstanding. I suggest that there are some moral absolutes that are transcendent!

As a side point, I would note that prior to the CSA, the possibility of secession was most often pursued by the North. I refer to the Hartford Convention of 1815, and to the Essex Junto.

To Mr. LeFevre,

It’s not true that I regard discussions of possible secession as off the table. If I came to regard such a thing as necessary, it would be with unspeakable sorrow at the ruin of the United States. But where Bubba is coming from is a neo-Confederate hostility to the United States. He _wants_ the United States to fail. He’s not just opposed to a national Union that became tyrannical and unendurable; he’s opposed to the national Union, period. He’s opposed to the United States as it has existed since 1865. And, as I said, he has a boring, one-note explanation for everything that goes wrong, related to his own bete noire, the United States. The fact is that he and I do not share a common ground of allegiance. Is it conceivable that under circumstances I may come to favor secession? Yes. But if I did, it would be on a completely different basis than Bubba’s.

There are vast threads at VFR featuring discussions with neo-Confederates and paleo-libertarians in which my reasons for my disapproval of them are pretty fully laid out. There are simply other things I’d rather spend my time here discussing.

Mr. LeFevre writes:
“Even Matt’s ‘We must repent from liberalism’ doesn’t cut it. (Who must? We here at VFR? The problem is that the liberals are the ones in power, and raw power has a way of trumping the will of the people.)”

I agree that it is frustrating. But I think the notion that we have the ability to project personal power beyond those who are directly influenced by our personal repentence is a conceit. In fact I think one of the primary functions of the ritual of voting as presently practiced is to create this illusion of projected personal power, which keeps us otherwise in our place. Once you’ve “given at the office”, or the voting booth in this case, you (meaning the vast majority of people, not anyone in particular) feel that you have done your bit, had your equal say.

And to avoid misunderstanding, what I said above doesn’t mean that I’m not interested in discussions of all the ways in which the government of the United States is now operating illegitimately and outside the Constitution.

About 10 years ago a California state lawmaker proposed breaking CA into 3 states. If I recall correcly it was to be Mexiwood, QueerLand and Hippies and AgriLand. He put arguments for it based on unmanagable state size and too different interests.

The proposal has never made it from the commitee and nothing was mentioned since.
If CA cannot split itself, if SanFernando Valley cannot split from LA, what are the chances that US will split? I would say beween 0 and 0.25%.

On another hand we have a recent example of a perfectly civilized and seamless divorce of Czeck and Slovaks in former Czeckoslovakia.

Divorce of Russians and Ukrainians also was relatively smooth.

By the way, did anyone considered that if Red and Blue America divorce, Red America is bound to totally dominate militarily in a few years? Even with thousands new recruits from San Francisco Castro district joining Blue force?

“We must do _something_, and no one at this site has advanced any solid proposal to reverse this trend.” Actually, I have repeatedly urged that members of this site engage in political activism that pressures Congress to do the right thing on various issues. I have noted elsewhere on this board that fax/email activism coordinated through NumbersUSA.com has turned the House of Representatives on the subject of immigration. Even Dennis Hastert, not exactly a conservative, was bucking the White House’s treasonous directives. Congressional aides couldn’t keep enough paper in their fax machines when the latest legislation was being debated.

“But I think the notion that we have the ability to project personal power beyond those who are directly influenced by our personal repentence is a conceit. In fact I think one of the primary functions of the ritual of voting as presently practiced is to create this illusion of projected personal power, which keeps us otherwise in our place.” See the above paragraph for a counterexample. See also the turnaround on gun control issues in Congress over the last decade for another example of Congress running scared of the people.

“See the above paragraph for a counterexample.”

The counterexample though is not an example of how an act of voting can change things, it is how other personal activities within the sphere of individual power — e.g. sending faxes — can change things.

But splitting hairs here is probably not nearly as productive as reading what Mr. Coleman just said in another thread:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/002792.html#19548

It isn’t directly related to the current topic perhaps, but I wanted to provide another link to his comment anyway.

In 2000 Federation for American Immigration Reform fairus.org invested about $1 million in Michigan senatorial race. It took just a few thousand contributors who earmarked money for that race.

As result Republican Abraham representing Saudi Arabia and OpenBorder Lobby in US Senate lost his job.

I believe that just one or two high profile losses by immigration enthusiasts per election cycle will concentrate weasels minds. See example of Rep David Dryer, R, CheapLabor.

I commend and endorse Mr. Coleman’s exhortation to work within the system in trying to reverse the downward spiral of our Republic. I noted my approval of this in my earlier post.

What I am referring to however are those systemic violations of our constitutional system that are effectively beyond the ability of the people of the States to address. The Supreme Court’s arrogation of illegitimate power to itself, through the Incorporation Doctrine and sundry outrageous constructions, the intrusion of the Congress into reserved powers most notably by the current misuse of the Commerce Clause (with the complicity of the Federal judiciary) are the greatest of these concerns.

These simply can’t be faxed or phoned away. The former are intractible. The latter problems go beyond the requests of citizens over how those illegitimate powers are used, it’s the fact that they have usurped them in the first place. The Federal government is out of control, period. And I don’t see any clear means to bring it back under the limitations of the Constitution. Nor have I seen any good suggestions on how to effect this short of a third party, like the Constitution Party into power.

It is only in such a context that I would consider the validity of things like a call for secession.

Mr. LeFevre proposes that states secede from the Union because of judicial usurpation. The idea that judicial usurpation would be a ground for popular support for the breakup of the Union is extremely far-fetched, at least under current circumstances. Ask the attendees at any conservative meeting what the Incorporation Doctrine is. A couple will have heard of it. The Incorporation Doctrine is the largest single component in the construction of the modern liberal state, yet almost no conservatives even know what it is.

However, if judicial usurpation continues, if there is the judicial imposition of homosexual marriage and other things I can’t even imagine at the moment, I suppose a point could be reached where there might be popular support for secession. We’re not close to that point now, in my opinion.

It is pointless to talk about “what I am going to do with my money when I become a multibillionaire” when there is no credible possibility that I will become even a multimillionaire. Similarly, there is no point in talking about “at what point will the American people support secession” when there are steps in between the present time and that distant day that would void the whole need for secession.

Long before the American people would support secession, a majority would support tossing out of office any Congressman who opposes term limits, a balanced budget amendment, the impeachment of activist judges, etc. If you cannot get the majority of voters in your state or country to support such measures with the necessary ferocity to get them enacted, then you cannot get them to support secession.

While I don’t agree with all of Mr. Coleman’s examples (term limits is not a real big issue in my book), his logic is correct. If the people didn’t have the collective political will and fire to do relatively easy things, like engaging in activism to impeach wayward judges, then they’re not going to have the collective will and fire to secede from the U.S. and create a new nation! And if they did have the will to do things like impeach judges, the secession would cease to be necessary.

Judicial usurpation was only one item I mentioned. The Congress is also guilty of passing extraconstitutional legislation every day. I’ll also note that Presidents have been using “executive orders” in ways that effectively make new laws, and the Executive branch has been responsible for such things as the Waco Massacre, the Ruby Ridge assassinations, and the invasions of sovereign States to “enforce” unconstitutional judicial rulings, such as occurred in Little Rock and in Mississippi, where blood was shed. All 3 Federal branches are working essentially in collusion to assert absolute power for the Federal government.

Nothing yet has really made Americans angry enough to do much of anything, but I do see a few things on the horizon: the Mestizo invasion for instance. And just wait till the next depression hits.

But again, I’m simply noting that at this point it is superfluous to be arguing against secession. This government is no longer constitutional or moral, and morality would side with the people, as States, resuming their granted powers. The Federal government has not been faithful with what was delegated, and no longer considers itself subject to the instrument that created it. Under those circumstances, the sovereign States that established this government ought not to be expected to adhere to the Compact when it presages their near abolition. Three-quarters of the States could legally annihilate this government.

I agree with Mr. Coleman and Mr. Auster about the realities of the present situation. Most Americans can’t look past their Monday Night Football games to bother about their country, or their liberty. And there’s a limited window in which Americans could still reign in the Federal monolith—if they could; the destructive mechanisms in place may well be too strong to break—universal suffrage, direct election of Senators, the massive infusion of aliens, etc.

But I’m not talking about tomorrow; I’m wondering where things are going in 20 or 30 years, as the majority stock recedes, as the Federal government continues to appoint a new citizenry and must invoke ever more repressive means to referee the ethnic zoo. Something is going to happen, and when it does I don’t think that phoning and faxing will be the weapons employed.

“Something is going to happen, and when it does I don’t think that phoning and faxing will be the weapons employed.” Especially since people are too busy with their football games to do the phoning and faxing RIGHT NOW.