For once, World News Daily, a popular right-wing hysteria website, gets a headline right: "Secession Madness!"
The folks who hate Barack Hussein Obama more than they love America are progressing in their grief over the President's and real Americans' victory on Election Day. They're moving on from the first stage of grief, denial, to the second stage, anger. (Only bargaining, depression, and acceptance to go! Tough it out, kids!) They aren't mad enough to move to Nunavat, but they are mad enough to call for secession and the destruction of the Union.
The White House petition website has seen angry anti-Obama Web lackeys pepper its site with petitions to allow most states in the Union to peacefully secede. The South Dakota secession petition blandly calls for the Obama Administration to "Peacefully grant the State of South Dakota withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government." In typical Teabagger fashion, the agitators cite the Declaration of Independence, but then fail to demonstrate the Founding Fathers' "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" which "requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." These secessionists aren't giving reasons; they are just venting childish rage stoked by the for-profit wingnut media machine.
There are some unpatriotic characters in South Dakota who think secession is a good idea. But the petition signers are mostly from elsewhere. A quick non-random count of the most recent several hundred signatories shows about 7% say they are from South Dakota. The other 93% could be blue-staters saying, "South Dakota? Good riddance! We're tired of subsidizing you!"
The petition signers are also one whisper shy of prosecution for treason. "Peacefully" is a key word here, since federal law frowns mightily on advocating the violent overthrow or destruction of the United States government. Here's a reminder of some possible penalties for you folks who think secession is a parlor game:
- 18 USC § 2381 - Treason: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
- 18 USC § 2382 Misprision of Treason: "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both."
- 18 USC § 2383 Rebellion or insurrection: "Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
- 18 USC § 2384 Seditious Conspiracy: "If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."
- 18 USC § 2385 Advocating Overthrow of Government is longer but instructive as well. Read it.
The advocates of South Dakota secession will hide behind that opening word "peacefully." But they know there's no chance that President Obama will grant their request. And they know that any practical move to achieve their stated goal of disunion will spark a civil war. That willingness to tempt such violent chaos should alarm all peace-loving patriots.
Grief is natural. People can overcome it. But expressing grief over Mitt Romney's defeat in calls for secession is beyond rational or constructive. Violent or not, these secessionists are demonstrating not just an unfitness for public office but a grave disloyalty to the Constitution and the Union. These secessionists deserve our fullest scorn, if not outright prosecution.
Update 07:24 MST: Gordon Howie wimps out on the secession question, promoting the hysteria with pro-secession graphics and language, then concluding his secession post with the weasel words, "I am not encouraging it at this point." Patriots know the answer to this question, Gordon. It's a simple No.
Secession is a very serious offense. Standing up with your signature for secession is an anti-American action, and should not be shrugged off as loose talk from loose screws.
I’d like a list of the South Dakotans who signed this petition to remove South Dakota from the United States. It should be part of the permanent public record to make sure these people are known to every American citizen. If these people should ever run for office, they should be forced to explain why it was so important that they put their name to such a hostile anti-American action because they didn’t like the results of the last election.
To prevent their further insult and mockery of our great nation, these people should be watched 24/7 to exclude them from:
- Joining any American assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance, saluting our American flag and joining in the singing of our National Anthem.
- Entering Mount Rushmore, Yellowstone National Park, the Lincoln Memorial, the World War II and Vietnam Memorials, the U.S. Capitol and any other federal properties built to honor our national heroes and heritage.
- Celebrating or publicly observing any national holiday or public event which celebrates the heritage of the United States.
Nobody needs to pass a law to enforce these recommendations, although a legislative resolution would be nice. As an act of good citizenship, we should each feel obliged to make sure these people remain exposed for their hostile anti-American action and remain shunned from joining the American community who honor our nation and its heritage of democracy and heroism.
As an American citizen, I am sick and tired of putting up with the bullying tactics and bluster from right-winged maniacs who talk tough, obstruct and make threats to force their narrow views onto the rest of the nation without a national mandate. President Obama has that national mandate by winning the election -- again.
After an election, our national heritage calls each of us to come together as a nation and put away the divisiveness of the last campaign. I, frankly, will not accept these secessionists as entitled American citizens until they put their name to a formal apology and a pledge to remain citizens who are loyal to our Union.
Good post Dougal.
Not just a good post but a great one Dougal. These people are not only an embarrassment, but an insult to anyone that has had to except a flag from the casket of a veteran here in South Dakota or any other state that is involved in this permute.
There is a little cemetery east of Sturgis on the south side of the road that has a whole lot of little white crosses that represent those that believed our country was, is, and always will be "worth the effort." Those people didn't turn and run, they gave in many ways so that these misfits could have the continued right to express themselves. They didn't however give their lives so that the country could be slapped in the face by attention seekers, power grabbers, and nutjobs.
Let freedom ring, power to the correct people, and shame on those that sign their names to a succession petition.
The Blindman
I agree with Dougal, Bill and Bill regarding the seriousness and disrespect inherent in this posturing by a minority of voters whose candidate lost the presidential election. Sadly, they know as little about the reality of secession as other disgruntled US (as in United States) voters do about emigration requirements and basic facts about the counties they threaten to deport themselves to. (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2012/11/08/14/57/us-teen-think-australia-has-a-christian-male-president)
And if they know anything about Canada (clearly they don't) they wouldn't want to come here. (http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/10-big-surprises-store-tea-partiers-fleeing-canada-if-obama-wins)
Especially to NunavUt where there are three official languages and only about 15% of the population is non-Aboriginal.
As an American living abroad, I value my citizenship and take it seriously. I wish they would too.
"All that's between South Dakota and equivalent of political secession next four years of Obama White House is Democratic Sen. Johnson." @pierremercer
Death... or a $10,000 fine? Well it's nice to know, if you plan on committing treason, what the consequences will be.
Another serious crime would be purposely violating the Tenth Amendment.
Rep. Lora Hubbel is a total nutball! Thanks District 11 for giving bat%^&* crazy lady a vote in the legislature for 2 years. And thanks District 9 for (barely) relieving her of her duties! But the Minnehaha County GOP still has that dim bulb as their fearless leader who wants to live somewhere other than the USA but doesn't have the gumption to actually move. The nuts are still running the GOP asylum!
Yes, secession is nuts but replacing the lower chamber with an "Online People's Assembly" is not. Indeed.
Bree, two completely different things. One is leaving the country because you don't like the people, the other is acknowledging that the country and its government ARE the people.
The secessionist people are sore losers. They were lied to by their entertainment Republicans and never saw it coming. I remember being disgusted in 2004 and depressed for about a week after the election, but I would never have signed an online petition to secede. They also might not know what secession means. They sure don't know the difference between a Socialist, Facist and Communist. Nor do they know the difference between journalism and opinion. I question Gordon's comment on his website about "not yet". Does that mean that at some point he might think it is a good idea for South Dakota? Does he expect to be the Jefferson Davis ready to take over when it does happen? The proper answer for him to give would have been that it is un-American to want to secede and to work in our own little corner of the world to make things better.
Jon Stewart had a great take on this with his "Post-Democalyptic World - Whine Country" segment last night.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
"But the Minnehaha County GOP still has that dim bulb as their fearless leader who wants to live somewhere other than the USA but doesn't have the gumption to actually move."
Lora's postion is that she wants to live in the United States of America, and not the United Soviets of America. I disagree with her solution. But this is a federalist verses anti-federalist argument that was the issue back in the day. Would you consider Jefferson a "dim light"? After all, he did choose to succeed from England. He did write the DOI. Were all the signers "dim lights" too?
Bill, one is following the law of land (granted an old dusty one) and the other is completely rewriting the law of the land in order to chase some Socialist dream - which has only ever ended in fascism and hyperinflation.
A better petition to sign might be the one to have Macy's "fire" Donald Trump.
http://signon.org/sign/urge-macys-to-dump-donald
re the Donald, does the misprision of treason law mean we all have to make sure a government official knows about his post-election Twitter meltdown calling for revolution and a march on DC?
Sibby may be right that Lora isn't a dim bulb and is more like the founding fathers. But I wonder if the secessionists have thought past their platitudes to think about the ramifications of secession?
There's just so many things to think about...
John Thune and Kristi Noem would be unemployed. Of course they could head up any number of new government agencies that would be needed to be our own country of South Dakotastan.
Who should we put in charge of border security?
How many thousands of jobs would be lost when Ellsworth AFB is forced to move? Ouch!
Forget the Farm Bill...those socialist federal farm subsidies would be gone.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...?
You think schools are expensive now...?
What would it cost us to maintain those interstates that would bring tourists to our new State Parks...Mt Rushmore and Badlands?
I'm sure Lora and her GOP friends, being of conservative thought and not dim bulbs, have worked all of this out and will be briefing us on these matters shortly.
Maybe the South Dakota Ron Paul people could tell us if our new currency will be based on our own gold standard? We've got plenty...right? Who's pictures would be on South Dakotastan currency?
Bree, you're putting me to sleep over here, sister. Hyperinflation? Come on. Interest rates are so low right now there might as well not be any. Do you even remember the 1980's? Now THAT was inflation. And guess what, you could actually make a little money on your savings. LOL.
"Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid...?"
When did those things happen, and what did the United States of America do without them prior to implementation? Any of you bright lights illuminate us on that?
"Do you even remember the 1980's? Now THAT was inflation."
That was before the liars removed food and energy from the calculation.
[CAH: Steve, I addressed this point with Les on Saturday. Permit me to repeat it here: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Concumer Price Index includes hundreds of specific items, including food and gasoline. I grant that my cereal, milk, and OJ have all gone up too fast over the last few years. But apparently, even with those increases, the BLS data says our usual basket of goods has increased in price less fast under Obama than over the full historical span of the data.]
Well we're not a Socialist State yet Bill. We're just headed that direction. It is nice that progressives no longer try to pretend that Socialism doesn't exist in our country - they are no longer able to publicly deride this truth. And now we see the rampant corruption at the polls so common in Socialist nations - because it is not the vote of the individual that matters but rather the common good, which is defined by those that control the counting. Yes, let us see what else occurs "for the common good" as the state grows and usurps the power of the individual.
Bree, the Social Security Act was passed in 1935. I was born in 1950. We've had various forms of socialism in this country all my life. Yours too, presumably, unless you're a lot older than I think you are. Perhaps you're just now getting around to learning your Civics lessons?
Bill, you're rambling. Are you suggesting that we've always been a Socialist State, or that progressives have never pretended that Socialists don't exist in our country?
Yeah Bill, then answer how in the heck did America get along for over 135 years without Social Security?
Sibby, pretty sure you know your answer to the questions on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Why don't you tell us what it would be like without those laws.
Here's something that points out how little the debate has changed since the1935 debate over Social Security:
"The rhetoric of the bilious debate over Social Security sounds awfully familiar. To President Roosevelt, the program to provide pensions for Americans age 65 and older was a safety net for families getting crushed by the Great Depression. To his critics, it was a job killer. When he proposed it in 1935, the former head of the chamber of commerce, Silas Hardy Strawn, dubbed the plan an effort "to Sovietize America." Other critics cried socialism, and Senator Daniel Hastings of Delaware said passing the plan would "end the progress of a great country." Despite such dire predictions, most Americans supported the program, and Social Security sailed through both houses of Congress with votes to spare. Roosevelt signed it into law on Aug. 14, 1935."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1974334_1974337_1974330,00.html #ixzz2CEXo6ogz
They died.....much younger.
I for one have never pretended there were no socialist elements in our nation's polity, Bree.
What would be the point of that?
It would be delusional, wouldn't it?
But I will challenge you as to what YOU think is THE most socialist organization in main stream America.
I'll give you three guesses.
Ooh are we playing Family Feud? I have a better game in mind, one based on facts and not the subjectivism of a radical activist.
Why don't you tell me what the life expectancy was in 1935?
Oh, c'mon Bree. Take a few guesses. The answer is so much fun. I can't wait to see if you guess it.
...besides, Bree, yours was way to easy: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
Jenny...that sounds just like the Republican health care plan for seniors. Think how much we'd save!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco
Bill's winning, and his graph doesn't include how those that work in physical labor don't live as long as those who don't.
But hey, they aren't job creators so no big deal.
http://demomemo.blogspot.com/2011/08/life-expectancy-varies-by-occupation.html
Should we look at wealth and life expectancy, OK.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2012/02/14/do-rich-people-live-longer
Good points Jana. Thanks.
"Bill's winning"
The kids will be losing once the ponzi scheme falls a part.
Jana and Bill, how did Americans survive without Social Security for the first 135 years. When did Medicare and Medicad come in?
That's right Bill. Don't put it in print. So the maximum life expectancy was for white females at... 65 years. Boy there's a number that sounds familiar! The life expectancy for white females listed for 2010 is over 81 years. So when the Social Security Act was passed the government was expecting to foot the bill for a few old white ladies past their life expectancy. So we can see that in much less than a century's time Social Security has grown way past its original scope, at a time when baby boomers are retiring in droves.
Now that Social Security is completely bankrupt, its coffers raided by the government, its spending trajectory exponential and untenable - a few sane voices speak up and say "able-bodied people 15 years from retirement, I want you to work a couple years more before you start collecting your checks from the government." And oh the caterwauling on the left, as though the eradication of Social Security was being proposed. It is apparently too much to ask some healthy individuals to work a couple more years for the sake of the survival of the country and for the benefit of their own children and grandchildren.
But imagine if we did live in a complete Socialist State. Would these same able-bodied individuals be able to stop working nearly 20 years before their expected death, and spend their time sipping Mai Tais and golfing? Well that doesn't sound like "for the common good." It doesn't sound like "each according to his ability" either. So if the U.S. spends itself into oblivion and turns into Greece, what will happen to these fond dreams of retirement? Maybe in retrospect those extra two years won't seem like such a big deal.
My message to any state that wants to succeed?
Try
Bree, thanks for warning us about turning into Greece! Here's probably a saner way of looking at it.
Is South Dakota Greece or Portugal?
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/the-difference-between-the-us-and-europe-in-1-graph/256857/
Social Security isn't bankrupt. It's running about a $2.7 surplus. $2.7 million more has been paid in than has been paid back out. Where are you getting your info, Bree?
By the way, the simple fix for SS would be to raise the cap. It's kind of goofy that it gets cut off where it is anyway, don't you think, Bree? A little tweak and its good to go. Besides, it's not part of the deficit, so why are you even worrying about it?
Bill, even the liberal sites cheerfully state that Social Security will only be able to pay 75% of benefits after two decades. Of course they spin that as "20 more years of solvency! That's pretty good!"
SS has nothing to do with deficit: Ronnie Raygun:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ED9FD80F-E441-478A-B67A-96FF7380254B
So? Raise the cap. Problem solved. Next?
libertarians are earth haters on crack.
Bree, you gotta stop buying into those "Chicken Little/Sky Is Falling" paranoid fantasies from the uber-right. You'll give yourself a nosebleed or something, kiddo. Just sayin'.
"And now we see the rampant corruption at the polls so common in Socialist nations - because it is not the vote of the individual that matters but rather the common good, which is defined by those that control the counting." Bree S.
Do you have some facts to back up this statement you made, Bree?
Guess Bree isn't up for guessing about the most socialist institution in the US, huh? Dang. What a party pooper. Okay, so here's the answer, Bree. Straight from the Big Kahuna himself. (You can of course verify with a simple google search if you want more sources. Just google "NFL socialism.")
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/30/goodell_admits_nfl_is_socialist
Bill, you brought up the topic. And I am USUALLY against raising taxes, not ALWAYS against. For example, when Mitch Daniels raised taxes on cigarettes in Indiana and then dedicated the entirety of the funds to subsidized HSA medical insurance for people without access to employer sponsored healthcare - I thought that was a good idea because it was a vice tax that had a positive effect on teenage smoking and the funds couldn't be raided for any other purpose (as you can see, despite what Cory thinks, I am not a Libertarian).
And that's the problem with raising the cap because Social Security isn't a dedicated fund, it's an imaginary account with no money it. Raising taxes to "fix" the problem only gives the government more money to steal from the public. I'd be more amenable to means testing personally, where people making so much money pay in but don't collect. Sure, I'd rather "privatize" the whole dang thing I am a conservative after all. But at this point something has to be done and BOTH sides have to realize they won't get everything they want in regards to Social Security Reform, and we have to do this before 2033 rolls around.
Rorschach, have you noticed that Philadelphia unanimously loves Obama?
R, Bree just has talking points. Old, tired, lame ones at that. But she's just such a heckuva good sport. It's hard to bust her chops too hard, you know?
icymi: recall that PP wants the Peoples' Republic of Brookings to divest of its massive holdings.
Yes, something will have to be done eventually, Bree. But it's not part of the current financial crisis. Apples and oranges. You know? Unless you just want to sound like another one of those hysterical troublemakers. ;^)
i prefer histrionic to hysterical, bill.
Bill makes a great point that he's made before. Raise the Social Security cap, problem solved...so who doesn't want the cap raised? hmmmmm
Bill has also pointed out taking on the deficit....end the Bush/Obama tax cuts, end the wars and problem mostly solved. And we don't do those things because?
That figures, Larry. Keeps you from having to partially self-identify, right? (I kid because I love, brother.)
Bill, rarely do I come across as hysterical. You are completely avoiding the problem that the money raised through Social Security taxes isn't dedicated to Social Security outlays. The money is simply tossed into the black hole that we call the government. Speaking of wars, do you really want Social Security taxes shifted around and spent on American Imperialism overseas? Surely you'd rather have all the Social Security taxes dedicated in entirety to the elderly and disabled, wouldn't you Bill? Please tell me why a requirement to spend Social Security taxes only on SSI is a bad idea.
Bree, the money HAS been going to the elderly and disabled. SS Admin's never missed a lick. You're not listening sister. How come? What's up with that?
(...by the way, Bree, don't look now, but you're starting to sound a little like Al Gore, with that lock-box routine.)
But okay, would I rather Bush and Cheney had not borrowed money from the SS fund to fight the unbudgeted Iraq war? Yeah. You got me.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/was-the-social-security-money-%E2%80%9Cborrowed%E2%80%9D-or-%E2%80%9Cstolen%E2%80%9D/
So, Bree, let's sort this out.
Sounds like we're both cool with a little socialism, right?
A little social security, a little football?
But not war.
Just for good stuff, right?
Good chat as usual, Bree.
Thanks.
So we agree that just raising the cap doesn't solve the problem, since past behavior by the government is an indicator of likely future behavior. I may be more amenable than you to the government dropping a few strategic bombs on Iran, but I don't want the government stealing from the elderly and disabled to do it.
Okay. Good, agreed. And so far they haven't. Agreed?
Just do it: anyone can renounce their citizenship
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/14/1161606/-All-Secessionists-Can-Secede-By-Renouncing-Their-Citizenship
Don't get me wrong, Bill - I think we could get along just fine without Social Security since families would start taking care of each other again like they have for thousands of years. But once the government has created a program of dependency, it is difficult to get rid of. I'd be happy if Social Security wasn't incredibly corrupt and mind-numbingly unaffordable.
According to the article from the radical newsletter promoting "Peace and Social Justice," the government has been stealing from the elderly for 30 years to pay for wars. Of course I'm not fluent in your language - am I translating that article incorrectly?
*eye roll*
Got a link, on that Bree?
Okay, meanwhile let's look at it this way.
You've lived a good life and managed to save up about $2.7 trillion dollars and have it socked away under the mattress.
So this guy comes along and asks you if he can borrow some of your dough to build some roads and bridges around the neighborhood, send the kids to school, feed some poor people down the road, and yeah maybe fight some bad guys who attacked the old homestead out east.
Now this guy has the best credit anywhere, and he can pretty much borrow from anybody, but he'd just as soon pay you the interest to help you build your nest egg.
So, do you loan it to him?
Or do you tell him to go borrow it from, oh, say... um... China?
Sure. Check out 16:19.
Did you just bring the bogeyman up to justify theft from the elderly and disabled?
GOP filibusters have resulted in gaps on federal bench: perfect storm for cannabis rights.
I have the solution for the secessionists. They should apply for membership with any of South Dakota's tribal reservations where they can experience life in Third World conditions in a sovereign nation. Oh, that's right. These well-to-do whiteys don't like Native Americans. They're too ... um, American.
wrong tree, D.
Statehood for the tribes and Mexico.
Great idea, L. Let's force it on them so they won't have the option of refusing.
Puerto Rico said no again but we keep asking anyway.
Mexican statehood for the tribes, and pardon Bob now!
Back up, Bree: I missed the part where my proposal for more citizen involvement is a "Socialist dream." Hard-core small-d democratic, yes, but hardly inherently socialist.
Spin it how you like Cory.
And Bill is right on. I'm advocating that we preserve and strengthen the Union. The secessionists advocate destroying America. The difference is crystal clear.
Please, Bree, don't shout "spin" just to shout it. You're trying to compare a proposal for legislative reform with a call to quite literally destroy America. Let's not play games. Let's stand in unity on this simple proposition: advocating secession because one's preferred candidate loses an election is unpatriotic, disloyal, and harmful to the Republic.
I like your link on renouncing citizenship, Larry. I do not like to tell people to leave the country. But if these secessionist have so little love for America, I would prefer that they leave America instead of trying to tear it apart. Some of us (the vast majority of us) still believe America is great and can be made greater. (That's not spin either, Bree.)
Why can't sincere secessionists simply emigrate? Last time I checked, there were no barbed-wire fences, moats, or high walls keeping anybody in the United States.
I wonder where a sincere secessionist might go, given a free pass. Mexico? Nicaragua? Argentina? China? I also wonder which country, if any, would accept such a person.
These people are loose screws. While most loose screws are harmless, a few can be dangerous. But as outrageous as all this talk and signature-making might be, I don't think it rises to the level of treason.
I know a few people who thought Bill Clinton was guilty of treason.
As for "lists" of people who have signed the petitions, the documents themselves are public information, aren't they?
Should be interesting to see how the President handles this business.
You're a reformist not a Marxist revolutionary Cory. But do you think it really matters to a constitutionalist how quickly or slowly you want to change the country? This is the United States of America not Athens, and I like the representative democracy we have that made us the nation we are.
This thread has gotten pretty far afield. Can we all agree that secessionists are un-American traitors?
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason..."
Define "adheres."
Define "enemies."
Define "aid and comfort."
Then we can define "treason."
Then we can agree (or not) whether all secessionists are traitors (that is to say, people guilty of treason).
Throwing around radioactive words like "traitor" and "un-American" make me mighty nervous.
Reminds me of the Patriot Act. Some of the provisions in there make me nervous too.
That said, I feel just about the same level of revulsion toward the secessionists as, say, Ken Blanchard feels toward Paul Krugman.
Krugman - the worst economic predictor in all of written history. LOL
http://www.lvrj.com/news/historian-seceding-illegal-under-nevada-law-179367521.html
Nevada has it down, Stan. Sedition, not treason. And it's a 'no-no.' :-)
Bree, I like the horses that helped make South Dakota the state it is by getting all those invading settlers here to claim their free government land. But that doesn't mean I have to advocate that we keep riding horses to work.
Good sedition link, Bill! I can't find a comparable clause in the South Dakota Consitution, but even if we can't make a legal case against these petitioners, we can make a clear and simple moral and patriotic case. Disloyalty is not cool.
Oh it's illegal alright Cory. See SCOTUS Texas v. White: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White
Excerpt from above link: "In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".[2]"
The GOP needs to get a grip on reality, Cory. That's it in a nutshell. Nutshell... Sounds like a synonym for Sibby's house. LOL
"The secessionists advocate destroying America."
No Cory, it is the Marxists that are destroying America. Or should I say "have" destroyed America. It is no longer the constitutional republic that it once was. It has been converted into a democracy where the majority enjoys mob rule. And today's majority is the New Proletariet created by teh Frankfurt School. Now that the cultural Marxists have the majority, full blown communism is the last step. When will they lock up Gordon Howie and the rest of us Christians by the true intolerant bigots? Fleming could not be happier. And neither would Pat Powers and his SDGOP Establishment Big Government cohorts who supported a fascist to defeat a Marxist this year.
Worry not, Sibby: the legislature is moving even farther to your lunatic fringe if Montana is any measure.
Sibby, I wouldn't lock you up, but I do think you should commit yourself to the State Hospital for a little R&R and some medicine to help with those hallucinations.
Would that be like some one telling Daschle he embolded the enemy while the one he was debating never served in the Milatary.
Sibby isn't crazy Bill. He just uses a few too many words in a row that don't see common use and so he loses people and gives radicals like you an opportunity to mock him to the masses.
Of course, I don't think communism is the goal of social democrats. That doesn't mean that growing government to the point of no return doesn't give communist fascism an opportunity to appear.
Just came over my twitter feed:
http://www.shamelessmag.com/stories/2012/11/aboriginal-womens-cultural-safety-and-sexual-healt/1/
RT @SunnyClifford
Unions: help form a #healthexchange in South Dakota.
Bree, I hate to be the one to break this to you, kiddo, but you and Sibby are the extremist radical fringe. I myself am a traditional, Democratic, left-of-center moderate.
Bill, I have conversed on here quite a bit with you and I am quite observant. You are not a moderate. But you do believe in using words to describe yourself outside any reasonable definition if you believe it useful to your purpose - such as when you told Jana "I've been calling myself pro-life for years ;)."
That's because I am pro-life. There's no dissonance there, Bree. I find that most people who claim to be "pro-life" really aren't. They are anti-abortion. And a great many of them don't have any clue what life, is, how it works, the inter-connectednes of it, or what it takes to support and sustain it. They are instead anti-science and anti-woman religious zealots.
So you have invented your own personal definition of pro-life to suit your goals. It doesn't change the fact that your definition is not in common use by the public, and that using it leads to confusion in discourse. Now tell me Bill, why would you want people to not understand what you are saying? Wouldn't clear communication of ideas benefit everyone?
Reality check for Bree:
You do understand, don't you:
1. That the position of "no-abortions, no exceptions" is an extremist, radical position and
2. That those who allow exceptions are in fact "pro-choice"?
You get that, right, Bree?
It is the "pro-life" movement that has co-opted the lexicon, Bree. Not me. The extreme right are masters of framing and Orwellian doublespeak. Maybe it's the writer in me, but I refuse to play that game. Words have meaning, and I use them as they are intended, not as they have been perverted,
Bill, the definition of pro-life in common use by the American public includes the spectrum of positions from defining life as beginning at conception and making abortion illegal on a federal level, to supporting restrictions on the availability of abortions at a state and/or federal level, to believing that abortion is immoral but feeling that it should not be made illegal at a federal level but rather legislated in each individual state. Bill, you do not subscribe to any of these views so you are therefore not pro-life by common definition. No amount of prevaricating or humanist psycho-babble about the interconnectedness of life will change the current everyday use of American English, so why bother?
Bill, your argument about the meaning of the word pro-life is proof that you are not a moderate or even left-of-center. Your average liberal wouldn't bother fighting the "Orwellian doublespeak" the "extreme right" has used to supposedly redefine the word pro-life. So why call yourself moderate Bill, when you know you are not?
Of which religious cult are you a member, BS?
Because that's what I am, Bree. You on the other hand are a radical extremist. It's important to know the difference, don't you think? Otherwise, why use words and logic at all, just consider your opinions as fact and roll with it. Like Bob Ellis and Sibby do.
If you call yourself a christian you are party to the slaughter of at least 52 million indigenous in the "New World."
You should try to be a little more objective in your definitions. I'm not surprised that you would define a conservative Republican who supports the raising of taxes on occasion as well as some regulation of the market to be a "radical extremist." After all you are "pro-the-interconnectedness-of-life."
Now would be an excellent moment for Charlie Hoffman to step in and tell me to listen to you.
Okay Bree, I'm all for objective. Good idea.
Here's a pretty good Political Spectrum Quiz.
Take if you feel like it and see what score you get.
Here's my score:
"You are a left moderate social libertarian. Left: 4.03, Libertarian: 1.78"
http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html
Thanks for that link, Bill. I am a left social moderate. Who knew? According to that quiz (-4.69 left) I am even a little to the left of you. Interesting quiz.
Sure sounds like fun.
From GoToQuiz:
You are a right moderate social libertarian.
Right: 5.42, Libertarian: 1.8
From Political Compass:
Economic Right: 4.38, Social Libertarian: .67
There were more and better defined questions at political compass.
Pew says I'm a Staunch Conservative. Some other place says I'm a Libertarian (which I know is incorrect since I was Libertarian in the past). I personally identify most closely with the Old Right, although I'm probably a little less isolationist.
Thanks for the link Bill. I am moderate social libertarian. Left: 3.7, Libertarian: 1.1
Cool! Thanks for playing along, all. I wonder if we can get Sibby to take it?
p.s. Bree, congrats, you're not an extremist afterall. I apologize, sister.
Good quiz Bill. I'm a left social libertarian. Left 4.91. Libertarian 6.34
I hope someone demands the names on these petitions. Can we get them through the Freedom of Information Act? If there are any officeholders on that petition, they should be impeached.
Bree, on Political Compass I score as follows:
Economic Left/Right: -4.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
So okay, there lie our differences.
Any state that votes to secede would have to pay off its share of the federal debt. Welcome to reality.
On Political Compass I score:
Economic Left/Right: -6.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97
Either test I'm a liberaltarian
From Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -4.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.10
Don, I think they're just throwing a temper tantrum, don't you? Part of the grieving process? (See Bree? Old Liberal Bill. No wonder you guys always win the arguments when things get nasty. LOL.)
R. You old lefty you. LOL.
" I myself am a traditional, Democratic, left-of-center moderate."
BIll, and you say that I am the crazy one? Like a used to say, get a mirror and repeat your personal attacks so that they are directed at the correct person.
"That the position of "no-abortions, no exceptions" is an extremist, radical position and"
So Bill, we are supposed to think killing the children of rapists is not insane? The killing is suppose to make their mothers feel better? Instead I would argue the rapists deserves the death penalty, but no...you on the radical left can't have death penalties. We are to feel sorry for the criminals and instead victimize their children.
Sibby, time to take your lithium, buddy. Then a little nap maybe?
Sibby is more of an idealist. I bet Rorschach is an idealist too.
Sibby's a man looking for answers, who, upon finding one, frequently forgets what the question is. ...like trying to have a deep conversation with Siri on the iPhone.
The results of the test are always different each time i take it: wambly algorithm for children of virgin birth apparently.
LOL. I could have guessed that Larry. It helps if you stop bouncing off the walls while you're taking it, mon. Just go make a nice pot of tea (the legal kind), take 50 deep breaths, quit thinking for a minute, get centered emotionally and settle in. Find your inner liberal, grasshoppah.
Advice to the GOP from a Bozemaniac:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/opinions/letters_to_editor/article_4db91aec-2c87-11e2-a786-0019bb2963f4.html
Pay Schlaw to become a pasture junkyard over the next 4 years, sucession or not.
You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 5.51, Libertarian: 2.46 Who knew?
The Blindman
You are a left moderate social libertarian.
Left: 5.58, Libertarian: 2.09
today, toady.
Okay, Bree, there you can see it. I'm a little more centrist than many who post here. Jana's even a little more center than I am. Kind of cool to compare scores, actually.
It's funny to watch you try to squeeze yourself in a Moderate Box. Okay, fine. You're a "centrist" since you end up in the "center" of the Anarcho-Socialist box. So you are a "pro-life" centrist. lol.
maybe you two should get a rheum.
Gross Larry. Call me an earth hater, that will perk you up.
My libertarian side favors abortion rights, and gay rights, and gun owners rights (except where they interfere with property owners rights), and smokers rights, and motorcyclist's rights to go without a helmet, and low taxes while the gubmint hoards billions in trust funds.
My liberal side favors workers rights, progressive taxes, minimum wage, a social safety net, a fair market (as opposed to purely free market) and regulations for the public good. If corporations are people, we will need to build more prisons to house many of them.
I like your politics, R.
Larry, the 'rheum' scenario is more your style than mine, brother. Are you projecting? LOL.
Bree, my position on abortion is pretty simple.
1. I personally will never have one.
2. I support your right to make the call as to whether or not you will ever have one for any reason.
3. I don't believe it's any of Sibby's business. Larry's either.
"my position on abortion is pretty simple"
Yes Bill, you want to worship mother goddesses and to hell with the fathers.
Go back to sleep, Sibby.
"Find your inner liberal, grasshoppah."
Yes Bill, your New Age pagan beliefs has lead you to goddess worship.
"Go back to sleep, Sibby."
What is wrong Bill, can't deal with reality. That is what happens to New Age pagans who live in a fantasy world where they think they can create their own reality. May God have mercy.
LOL. Right, Sibby. Whatever you say. Whenever I want to brush up on reality, the first place I go is right to the Sibby Online blog. ROTFL.
Bill, you can't handle reality. You have proven that over and over. Just like on this thread, you can't handle the fact that the children of rapists are being punished by death for the crimes of their fathers while you protect the fathers/rapists from the death penalty.
One more time. I think that's all up to the mothers, Sibby. I don't believe that women are an extension of the fertilized egg inside them. Reality (you know, science...biology) demonstrates that it's the other way around.
BTW how are things going on your unicorn ranch?
Wow, 150 comments on a threat in Madville Times! Congratulations Cory for operating a forum that gets this much interest and play! Thank you for your good works. Whoops, I guess this is number 151 on this thread.
I meant "on a thread in Madville Times!" And now this is number 152.
"I think that's all up to the mothers, Sibby."
Yes Bill, your goddess worship theology. You ignore due process for other parties involved.
" I don't believe that women are an extension of the fertilized egg inside them. Reality (you know, science...biology) demonstrates that it's the other way around."
Yes, and justice that provides due process says the kid deserves a day in court. Once the court issues the death penalty, then justice can be served. So my position is not banning abortion, and it is not pro-choice. If a jury of twelve deems the child is causing enough undue harm to the women, they they can apply whatever justice fits the crime. Now is that radical?
Yes, that's radical and extreme, Sibby, any number of ways.
Due process is radical? OK Bill, continue your New Age pagan distortions.
A fetus has no civil rights until the third trimester.
Energy drinks have been linked to miscarriages but watch Sibby protect the manufacturer from lawsuits.
"A fetus has no civil rights until the third trimester."
That is what you child sacrificing pagans think.
Oh brother...
I'm assuming from Sibby's anti-abortion comments that he would then support the President's plan for free contraception so that no woman ever has to go through that agonizing decision. Problem solved!
Yay a pop quiz! You are a left social moderate.
Left: 5.62, Libertarian: 0.94
Why oh why do so many threads here get turned into abortion debates when the original post has nothing to with that subject?
Secession huh? Sure,because that's worked out so well before. *eyeroll* If some people are really that unhappy with the good old USA,they are FREE to pack their stuff and leave. Don't let the door hit ya on the ass on your way out. Buh-bye.
Good question Vickie. Maybe because having control over women's bodies is all some folks around here can ever bring themselves to think about?
Yes that's what I think. Thank you, Bill, for helping me understand the curious workings of my own mind. What would a poor girl do without important men around to tell her what she thinks.
"If some people are really that unhappy with the good old USA,they are FREE to pack their stuff and leave. Don't let the door hit ya on the ass on your way out. Buh-bye."
Vicki, thanks so much for putting into words the real intolerance of the radical left and their total disregard to minority rights, the very foundation to original American political thoguht, as the communist radicals executive their tyranny of mob rule. Which is the Cultural Marxist execution of the new proletariet (criminals, colors, females, and sex worshippers)taking control.
Sorry Steve. I'm not falling for your bait to continue your abortion debate or your disgust with everyone that doesn't agree with you.
Label everyone as you please if that's what makes you happy. I honestly don't care.
Bree, don't mention it.
"or your disgust with everyone that doesn't agree with you"
And you said:
"they are FREE to pack their stuff and leave. Don't let the door hit ya on the ass on your way out. Buh-bye."
You and Fleming need a mirror and start repeating your personal attacks by looking into it and maybe you both will learn that you are hypocrits.
Sibby. So humorless. So bitter. Sad.
Fleming. Lost without a clue. Beyond sad.
Well, to each his own, Sib. Put it this way, I wouldn't trade places with you for any reason I can possibly think of.
And wherever it is you think you are going, please know that it's okay with me if you don't imagine me there... especially if it involves my having to think and behave as you do.
I'm quite simply not interested.
Bill, why so bitter? Lets have some fun, get someone to film you screainmg into a mirror accusing everyone for being who you are and then load it up to youtube. I bet it would be so funny that it would go viral.
Any derision you get Sibby, you bring upon yourself. If you don't enjoy how it works with others when you behave as you do, stop behaving that way. Pretty simple.
Dougal: the "threat" slip is amusing! I thank your subconscious!
Warning! 83 vacancies on the federal bench:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/judicial/268967-83-judicial-vacancies-awaiting-senate-action
It is the federal government which has committed crimes against the constitution and the union. continually violating states rights and autonomy with Un-constitutional laws, blackmailing states with withholding federal money, Illegal secret treaties, cartelizing the free market in many areas such as medical, treasonous agreements with forign cauntries, raiding the coffers for corporate welfare, turning the election process into a two party (one party) state (no defferent than the former soviet union or china), Judicial activism by the supreme court, wars and toppling other governments for corporate welfare, continually invading the civil liberties of people who petition the government and protest, by using federal agencies and broad, extraordinary powers to go after political enemies instead of enemies of the american people.
Our Senate is as useless as the Roman Senate was, and many modern day presidents act the same way as the roman emperors did.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. (declaration of independence 1776) -- and its time again 237 years later.
David B. "Right of the people to alter or to abolish it" This is the American way, now all you need is enough people that think just like you do- good luck with that as 95 percent of the American people think the secession movement is nothing but a big joke.
Exactly, Barry. They'll also need to convince us that their secessionist, hyperbolic rhetoric is not itself a treasonous call to realize fantasies of violence and anarchy.