Parting Company


Here’s the question asked in my September 2000 column titled “It’s Time To Part Company”: “If one group of people prefers government control and management of people’s lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?”

The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upsmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.

I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.

You say, “Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?” Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution lists the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. Nowhere on that list is authority for Congress to tax and spend for: prescription drugs, Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank and business bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget.

Neither is there authority for congressional mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. The list of congressional violations of both the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end. Our derelict Supreme Court has given Congress sanction to do anything upon which they can muster a majority vote.

James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained in Federalist Paper No. 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Americans who wish to live free have several options. We can submit to those who have constitutional contempt and want to run our lives. We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed and death in an attempt to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights. We can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. Some independence movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden; Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally.

The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation.

  • Doggwood

    As Walter Williams observes, we've reached an impasse. But where does it go from here? I suppose, in a sick sort of way, we should be grateful to Obama for turning up the heat on the long slow boil and making Washington's insatiable avarice and lust for power obvious to everyone.

    I don't want to fight my fellow Americans. But Washington has crashed too far into our private lives. The Constitution, and the traditional rules of lawmaking, have been effectively suspended. Note that Scott Brown's election would have ended the health control monstrosity…so the Democrats voided the rules in order to nullify the election. So Washington is taking control of the health infrastructure, and Washington decides who lives and who dies. Washington has seized sovereignty over our bodies. The will of the people is circumvented; the consent of the governed is forfeited. This is unacceptable. Either America will rein in Washington, or Washington will pummel America into submission. Either scenario is going to be very ugly.

    I had hoped that the "moderate" Democrats would save the nation by putting a brake on Obama's insane excesses. I guess I was dreaming.

    • Jim C.

      How about this for a solution? Win an election. It's worked farily well for 200+ years.

      • buzzard

        Maybe some reading comprehension will serve you well. Reading the article would point out the part where he mentions that this erosion of constitutional rights has been proceeding for over two decades (personally I'd say eight, with a brief reversion under Reagan). Just to do the math for you (as is probably necessary) that's five elections which have done nothing to reverse the slide.

        • Jim C.

          I congratulate you on saying eight decades rather than two. That shows principle at least.

          It also, I suspect, puts you in a significant minority with regard to your stance. I know a lot of conservatives say they're for this, too, but when push comes to shove can't really commit. So I guess buying an island, or moving to Texas and seceding is probably the only thing you can do, provided Texans are amenable to it.

          • walt b

            I agree… elections are for changing. The Founders realized that "men are not Angels" and therefore required a government to protect them from human nature. That government was supposed to be smaller as its center got further from the people. An educated elector was required to "Keep our Rebublic". The fatal flaw is the Founders miscalculated the distance between men and Angels.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Doggwood Doggwood

        I guess you're not paying attention. We WON the election. Scott Brown's election would have stopped health care. So the Democrats changed the rules. They overtly suspended the democratic process. Aren't you listening to Obama? He said the process doesn't matter. Obama is actually doing all the evil stuff that he accused Bush of doing. Obama promised consensus during his campaign, and explicitly condemned Bush for a 50%+1 approach. Anyone with any decency or integrity, even if they favor the health care legislation, should be horrified at what was done to get this passed. The precedent is terrifying, because we've set a new low standard, or I should say a non-standard. The political opposition will be justified in using similar made-up rules to likewise do whatever the hell they want, if they can only get into a position to make up more rules. Our republic has passed out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the grasping oligarchs. This is a tragedy beyond measure, and we shall lament this evil day and curse the fascists who brought us to this point.

  • Hammer

    As my hand to hand combat instructor said to me in advanced infantry school. "Don't come to the party if you ain't ready to dance"

  • poptoy

    I REALLY DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO HEAR MY OPINION ABOUT BIG GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/GaryRumain Gary Rumain

      If BIG GOVERNMENT wants your opinion, they'll probably give it to you and expect you to like it.

  • N. Young

    Professor Williams knows the Constitution better than most of the characters in Congress. Walter Williams for President!

  • Arnold Wolf

    As a Jew who lives in Texas, it is not far from Governor Rick Perry declaring that Texas cedes from the Union as provided by this states entry into the United States. If and when a country of Texas declares its independence without the permission of Congress (already a fact) how many Americans might choose to live in a country free from the US Congress, taxation, government mandates and death by sanctioned assisted suicide?

    Texas has the resources to sell oil, natural gas and create jobs with the Texas dollar which will represent more than an almost non-existent GDP.

    Wishful thinking?…. Hussein Obama make just make the decision for Texas to cede from the Union all by himself. Just think, no Sharia law in Texas…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/TeethVA TeethVA

      If the country is going to "he– in a hand basket" and if Texas cedes, we will move to Texas. What will your state/country be called? We will move there, a place which will let us live our lives in peace and freedom and not as mindless robots of the federal gov't.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

        It would probably be called "The Republic of Texas". By the way, I will go there, also.

        • coyote3

          We often call it "The Repubic of Tejas" out of respect for tradition.

    • Habiru

      As a fellow Jew living in Texas, I am ready for Texas to leave the Union. Enough is enough. Besides, I have no intension of having an anti-Semite president and his fellow thugs in his regime and in congress try to rule over me.

      For me, Freedom is a Holy Word not to be trampled on by anyone or any government.

  • Ron Parsons

    Thank God for Walter Williams!

  • Alex

    One little problem: parasites cannot survive without sucking blood out of working bodies. They will never let as walk away peacefully. They hate us to death because they need us.

    • mikenj

      My God, Alex! Your two sentence explanation made my eyes buldge with recognition.
      You are exactly right — exactly!

      Next question : Will the US Army fire on it's own people?

      • alex

        Watch closely if a separation of the Army units by some identifiable traits (geographically, racially and so on) is implemented, as its being done by demagogues in our civil life – Bankers!!!, Rich!!!!, White Racists = Tea Party, Rednecks!!!, “Social Justice!!!, “Fair”!!!, etc. All the slogans used for destruction and robbery since the times immemorial.

        In the USSR soldiers from Baltic "Republics" were sent to the east and Asians were sent to the west. No connection with the local population. From today’s stand – too far reaching, but History is a playful goddess.

        Divide and conquer!

        • Jim C.

          And when this inane prediction doesn't happen–and it won't–will you finally admit you are a moron?

          • alex

            First of all, it was not a prediction. Just a comment on common tactics of the "leaders of exploited masses and underprivileged".

            Secondly, I would LOVE to be wrong, please G-d, and admit it as many times as you would like.

            However, you are obviously opined by deduction. Unfortunately, my family, my friends and their families, as well as I, have a hands-on experience with the folks who elected and now supporting BHO. Believe you me; none of us wants even a hint of the “social justice” stench in this country and watching its decline for the last 20-25 years is just plain depressing.

            On the other hand, your insult is a sign that the post did tuch a nerve.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

            As usual, when you don't have any arguments, you resort to personal attacks. I've noticed this about you in several other threads. Why do you come to a website where you so clearly hate those who regularly post there? How much are you paid to do so?

            Jim, you are the internet version of the "seminar caller" …

      • evergreen78

        40% will. I forget where I read that.

    • Jim C.

      That's hilarious. You know the wealthier, more productive, more innovative, more regulated Blue States subsidize the less productive, less innovative, less regulated Red States, right? Who's sucking off whose teat?

      • gpcase

        Its not really about Red v. Blue states, but about individuals: the parasites who survive by feeding off of productive and innovative people…and that includes bailed-out bankers, government bureaucrats and welfare recipients. The fact that there are more innovative people living and working along the two coasts compared to more rural areas does not mean that this was caused by more regulation and taxation (the fallacy of confusing correlation with causation). The decade-long loss in production, population and tax revenues away from Blue states suggests reality is catching up with them.

        • coyote3

          Yeah, I noticed that too. Like saying the people on the coasts use the the two oceans more than those in the interior.

          I really don't want more people, any kind of people, in my great Tejas, Republic of. Sorry, we just can't say Bienvenidos, Y'all" to all of you.

        • Jim C.

          Thanks for an intelligent post.

          I agree that reality is catching up after almost two decades of "bubble," and I am not trying to make a causal point but one regarding rhetoric: the popular Palinesque idea that there is a "real, hardworking America" in these Red States whom the Blue Staters are trying to deprive of their livelihoods by siphoning off the fruits of their labor. Now obviously, Red and Blue are poor indicators where "reddish purple" and "bluish purple" would be more accurate. The argument, as you indicate, goes deeper and across economic strata, with culprits in business, government, and the populace at large.

          • davarino

            Whatever, how bout the states just keep their money instead of sending it to the Feds, and spend it the way they want. That way the blue states can continue getting richer with their evil bankers, insurance companies,…etc, and the red states can just be left alone.

      • Tom

        Wrong again. More regulation= less innovation and productivity. That is verifiable historical fact in any industry.

    • Fred Glass

      You knocked it out of the park. That last sentence says it all.

      I remember reading about a military organization, I think called the Oath Takers, who take an oath never to use violence against their fellow Americans. I guess they are anticipating some sort of seperation.

      • Joe S

        It’s http://www.oathkeepers.org and it is not a military organization but a group of concerned citizens (vets, active duty military, police officers and fire fighters) that have swore to protect the constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic.

    • gravelrash

      Dead right, Alex. I’m an Australian but this article reverberates in our society also. I have been advocating this separation by peaceful means for some time but am aware how useless “the left” are and acknowledge they will never let us go. Who will do the dirty work if we are all gone? How many lefties does it take to change a lightbulb anyway? Answer: They don’t change the lightbulb, they change the law.
      If it’s Texas….can I come?

  • Moishe

    Did I miss something? Just where are we supposed to go?

    • davarino

      Ya I hear ya. Some time ago the hollywood left threatened to leave America during the Bush admin. They are lucky because they could go just about anywhere in the world, but we on the right are running out of places to go.

      • maryann

        We're all going to Texas!

  • wanabfree

    Thank you Mr. Williams for saying what many of us have been thinking. We may have to split into two countries, those who want a constitutional government and those who do not. Is that such a far-fetched idea? Is there any other way to reconcile our differences? What a shame, we were a great country at one time. How about using the Mississippi River as the dividing point?? Hmmm… If that won't worked, then Washington D.C. needs to be fumigated asap.

    • Jim C.

      Start by not thinking its Armageddon when you happen to lose an election after bungling governing for 8 years. Start by not living in a bathysphere of your own self-pity and work to grow.

      Find some fresh ideas and a good person to sell them and win an election. Reagan did this. Problem is, his ideas no longer seem fresh.

      • M Rob

        Regan's ideas still hold true today. Government is the problem! If you are happy with the current government Jim you must be on welfare.

        • Jim C.

          Economy's recovering. Jobs are coming back. Our automakers are doing great business and we will get some of the banking regulation we need. We're going to slowly but intelligently phase our troops out of two countries whose ill-conceived "threat" to our sovereignty never justified the blood and treasure we sacrificed. On top of this, we are addressing our health care system, albeit 40 years too late (T. Kennedy should have ceded to Nixon in the 70s). In a few years, we'll join every other advanced industrial nation in wondering what the health care fuss was all about. No, not on welfare, but cautiously optimistic for this great nation of ours.

        • Jim C.

          True or not, M Rob, problem is, Reagan's ideas neither sound fresh, nor ring true in a time where government has probably kept us from experiencing a real depression. When the likes of Alan Greenspan are going around chastened and sounding more Keynes than Friedman, good luck with selling Reagan's message.

          Should Obama overreach in his second term, as many a president has before him, perhaps that will signal a time for a return to Reagan's ideas.

      • wanabfree

        How can you say the governing was bungled for the last 8 years… when BO is for sure Bush on steroids! Oh, the whining and self-pity and outright hatred of all things Bush! Why, even acts of nature and terrorism were all Bush's fault! But the "same old" is ok now that the right people are in control, what hypocrisy! Problem is, Reagan's ideas will work today, altho we need an administration that is wise enough to understand that. You must have a government job, thank the rest of us peons for your good paycheck and benefits. Or your welfare ride, same difference.

  • La Nell

    What will we do with the RINO's – those that SAY they are conservative, but really aren't…

    • Jim C.

      Well, you can kick them out of the party and never win another election again.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/TeethVA TeethVA

        WE vote them out and we WILL win more elections. The reason we are in the minority is because there are too many RINO's who want to reach across the aisle. When have the Dems done this in recent history? Thank God we are the party of "NO".

        • Jim C.

          Obama spent his first year in office reaching across the aisle. And you all complained that nothing got done and mocked him" "Where's the change?" Did you watch Obama addressing the House Republican's retreat in Baltimore? Do you think Mr. Bush would have had the guts or ability to have an exchange like that?

          So finally Obama said "OK, you don't want to play ball? OK, well I have to get this done, it's why I was elected" and now you're all wondering where the bipartisanship is.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TeethVA TeethVA

            Where or what were you watching LAST YEAR when the Republicans wanted to discuss heath care reform with Obama and he was quoted as saying to them, "Too bad, we won, you lost." And speaking of meeting with Republicans this year, I watched the the health care summit he held with Republicans. Paul Ryan made his case and Obama was speechless- didn't have answer. So what did he do during this summit? He filibustered. I guess his M.O. and directions from Soros/Axelrod is to just keep talking and filibuster over and over again. You are drunk on the Marxist Kool-Aid.

          • Jim C.

            Actually what happened was that some Republicans had some good ideas and were immediately shut down by the leaders in their own party because they didn't want to make Obama look good.

            What's funny is they sure didn't have those ideas ready when they had the power to do something about it.

            But Obama comes in…suddenly Republicans admit there's a health care crisis brewing in this country. Very interesting, wouldn't you say, TeethVA?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TeethVA TeethVA

            You know what is more interesting? Bush started his second term by bringing up Social Security reform and how it had to be addressed or SS would become insolvent sooner rather than later. What did the Dems do? They lied and scared the pubic, esp. the senior citizens into thinking that Bush was going to take their SS away. That's how the Dems operate: they lie and fear-monger until the gullible public freaks out and causes the Republicans to stop. That's why I stated earlier that the RINO's have to be voted out.
            BTW, who are the Repub. leaders who told the Republicans who had some good ideas about health care reform to immediately stop with the ideas in order to make BO look bad? Can you state them and quote them? Let me know …thanks … Teeth, VA!

  • Jim Darlington

    Jim C = Voice of Reason
    Walter Williams and all other Commenters = Loons
    I wish it were so.
    "The bottom-line question for all of us is: Should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another? My preference is a restoration of the constitutional values of limited government that made us a great nation."
    The hour of decision has not arrived, but History's a bundle of surprises, and the day may come, Jim.
    And I for one will move to Texas when it does and start remembering the Alamo all over again.

  • Jim Darlington

    All right here I go.
    (C'mon Alabama, all together one two three, "Bless his heart, but he's so ignorant he oughta just keep quiet")
    Forget about Secession. No one wants out of the USA. No one want out of the greatest country on earth.
    We all just want the Federal Government out of our A**.
    Why not a series of State Resolutions banning the Federal Government from extra Constitutional activities within their sovereign domains?
    Resolve to continue support of the Federal Government in the execise of its enumerated powers and functions and to withhold support and permission for all those powers and functions denied it by the US Constitution and usurped from the various States.
    Thank you Thank you Thank you.
    I'll go away now.

    • Edward

      By God, I must be just as ignorant as you, bless our little hearts, 'cause I agree whole-heartedly with you. But what do we do with the huge illegal population (in and out of prison cells) and all the entitlement programs? Right, we'll just s**tcan all of it, eh?

    • Jim C.

      That's a good conservative position. I respect it greatly, can even entertain what it means in some areas. Dept. of Education? Get rid of it. Granted, I hate to see what will happen to the schools of Alabama without it, but by the same token, no more one size fits all might do our schools some good.

      You see? We might just agree on a few things here and there.

  • Tom

    Really Jim C? Don’t bet too much on an economic recovery yet. There are still too many uncertanties that can have a negative effect. Also, as we have seen just this past week, Many large corps are reporting big write downs because of the new healthcare bill. Un employment is still high and the recent slight improvement is illusory because of the mass hiring of temporary census workers. And on the healthcare part, just keep dreaming. The other countries you mention have much worse care than we do. They have rationing, far less innovation, and their people with money come here instead of availing themselves of thheir “wonderful, free” healthcare. The top THREE hospitals in the US do more clinical trials a year than ALL of the hospitals in any other country.

    • Jim C.

      I'm betting on a very slow economic recovery.

      Tom, insurance companies already ration healthcare. And prices continue to rise. What Obama's done is a start and I'm confident we'll find our version of it the way the Danes have or the Canadians or the Brits. You guys (imo) have only one legitimate gripe–but it's a biggie: How are we going to pay for it? I think as this plays out, the relief that is going to come to business owners will be welcomed, and the costs we save by insuring everyone will offset the expenses. And your care won't suffer as long as you and your doctors and not insurance companies are making the decisions for your care.

      Conservatives can always find two Canadians who aren't satisfied with their heath care the way they find the two African Americans in their party and push them in front of the cameras. But by and large, most of those countries are quite satisfied with their models and demonstrably enjoy a much healthier standard of living.

      • alex

        And when this inane prediction doesn't happen–and it won't–will you finally admit you are a moron?

        • Jim C.

          Absolutely buddy. Great thing is, unlike certain other inane predictions, this we'll know for sure in a couple years.

      • alex

        "And when this inane prediction doesn't happen–and it won't–will you finally admit you are a moron? "

        Not in your life time…

      • alex

        Jim C. "And when this inane prediction doesn't happen–and it won't–will you finally admit you are a ….?" lets say not so bright.

      • Tom

        Completely false. Public opinion polls in both Britian and Canada show overwehlming (in the 65-73% range) dissatisfaction with their current healthcare. Hospitals in Britian are so dirty that they have had problems with Steph infections that last several years. How that equates to excellent care, I just don't understand.

        • Jim C.

          And I'll show you polls in the United States that say the same percentage of people want some government intervention in health care. Actually, the claim that health care was passed against Americans' will is completely false.

          Every poll you show me, I'll show you a counter. It's all in how the question is presented–you know that.

          I submit that conservatives officially don't really believe health care presents a problem in this country. Things are fine as they are (as long as you can afford it). How do I know this? Eight years of Republican rule and nothing was done.

          Those conservatives who have presented alternatives—well, those alternatives sure look an awful lot like Obama's plan.

          • Tom

            I know that poll questions can skew polls, thats why I use amalgamated data that lowers that problem. Also, I only use data from credible pollsters. Therefore if I submit credible polling data and then you try to refute it with some DailyKOS poll, your point is nullified(not saying you do that, but making a comparison for dramatic effect). You seem to forget that Democrats were way more obstructionist to Bush's attempts to fix anything than Republicans have been to Obama(and Bush had actual majority of American opinion with him at that time). Republicans have been saying there is a need for reform in healthcare for a long time despite what you believe. It is the problem that the Democrats are in the trial lawyers hip pocket that prevents one of the largest needed reforms there is: tort reform. And don't try to pull that overused canard that it won't have much of an effect. Malpractice insurance, redundant testing, overused "preventative" care, and other industry cya measures cause a drastic increase in healthcare expenses.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stephen_Brady Stephen_Brady

            Tom, it is necessary for everyone who deals with Jim, on this website, to realize that he engages ceaselessly in the "misdirection". In other words, you say, "Health care is too expensive", and he replies, "Bush bailed out the banks!" You say, "Obama's acting like a traitor on nuclear arms", and he says, "The GOP ruled for eight years!" No matter what you say, he will misdirect the argument in another direction, unrelated to the issue at hand.

            In my opinion, he's a paid troll. A word to the wise should be sufficient …

  • Seek

    Instead of secession, how about a less dramatic move such as taking seriously the 9th and 10th amendments to the U.S. Constitution? That is, the federal government ought to have powers, but none beyond those expressly granted.

    • coyote3

      Unfortunately, it is even worse than Walter Williams asserts. The Consitutionality of most of this stuff has not even been considered, much less resolved. It is partly the result of a derilict Supreme Court, but they can only decide what is put before them. The fact is these arguements about costs, lack of cost, innovation, lack of innovation, Red State/Blue State, good, bad, indifferent, recovery (slow or fast), and suffering. are just irrelevant. The issue is a congress with powers limited, and delegated. Now there are areas where there is room for arguement, but when there is absolutely no power delegated to do an act, to do so is to operate illegally, period. The D.C. Circuit just illustrated the point in the FCC case, so it can happen, regardless of the real or perceived grievance addressed by the regulation/legislation. Now, if you want to give the federal government a power that is not presently delegated to it, there is a way to do so, but breaking the law is not one of the means.

  • crowfoot

    Just who would secede? Would all conservatives move to Texas and then declare an independent state?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/kwg1 kwg1

      You must have been a sleep for the last two years to need to ask that question.

  • curt cummins

    To Jim C.

    Your arrogant and superior tone is a strong argument for splitting the blanket and you are making Mr. Williams points for him.
    You remind me of my wife at the time of our divorce. We argued for years , each pulling in opposite directions, until one day, I simply stopped arguing and started walking away. My life has been much more peaceful and satisfying ever since.
    The idea of living in my own country where I don't have to argue with jerks like you is powerfully attractive.
    By the by, who are you going to kick around when we're gone?

    John Locke

    • Jim C.

      I am, indeed, superior to anyone who thinks Obama is a muslim commie bent on destroying the USA for nefarious purposes. Don't blame me; blame nature. I live in reality; they choose not to.

      I am not superior to any conservative with something intelligent to say. I've learned a thing or two from many a decent conservative who inhabits reality. Unfortunately these days, most seem content to cry in their beer, fantasize about invasions and doomsday scenarios, and invent conspiracies. So, hey, if you can't take the heat, adios, wherever it is you think you're going.

      Our author Mr. Williams is certainly not dumb, but I believe he presents quite a quandry for conservatives, one I think is a bit overblown. You are of course free to disagree.

      • curt cummins

        Sorry, I must have missed the part in my post about Obama being a Muslim commie bent on destroying America, invasions and doomsday scenarios. I thought we were discussing the extreme differences of opinion about what direction the country should take in the future and how this argument could be resolved on a permanent basis. Apparently, like my ex-wife, you know more about what I think than I do.

        As to wherever it is I think I'm going, I'm not planning on going anywhere. I'm planning on not co-operating any longer with people like you, when you presume to dictate to me how I must live. Worked for Gandhi and MLK Jr., should work just fine for us.

        When you're ready to discuss the terms of the divorce, have your attorny get in touch.

        • alex

          To Jim C. I suspect you are just having fun time at the expense of the worried-sick folks who really care about this country and its social and economic future.

          Why don’t you go to some University campus and blab there among equally "superior" and “progressive” thinkers? Let us adults share our thoughts and frustrations without bad-mannered un-educated and juvenile interruptions.

          • Jim C.

            I am having a bit of fun, but I too am worried sick about the country. And I am sickened by some of the views of Obama, and I will call people out on that. The fact that people are thinking civil war and military crackdowns (or hoping for military coups) is beyond the pale. It defies reality.

            If you're about lower taxes and small federal government, more power to you, I say–but get your guys elected. I see a lot of easy rationalization about "RINO"s et al. But no one seems to ask why is it that even when you have the presidency and congress you're not getting what you think you should be getting. I suggest it goes beyond "The democrats are mean." In fact if you dig, it's possible you may even find something in common with progressives. And that my friend is probably the answer to this conundrum. Who is really in charge, and what's the extent of our say?

        • Jim C.

          Post wasn't attacking you, curt, unless you were one of those folks who honestly believe those things about Obama. They seem to post here with great frequency, you must admit.

          I don't really care how you live; more power to you. You ask how these differences can be addressed. We can start by facing reality and not indulging in paranoid delusions (which please note I am NOT accusing you of). We may desire a divorce but we still have to share custody of this country.

          • curt cummins

            OK then, here's my best shot, this country is too polarized politically and socially to hold together much longer.
            How do resolve differences when the two side are 180 degrees out from each other and adamantly passionate about their points of view?
            The way we do things now, it's winner take all and neither side can compromise. Let's go back and use the constitution.
            Let those states whose people want big government have it. Let them tax and regulate themselves as much as they like. Let the state provide as much of the basics of life as they wish, but let them pay for it.
            Let those states who want a more free market economy have it. Shrink and restrict the size of the Federal government to allow the states to collect the tax revenues themselves.
            Social issues, abortion -gay rights – etc. Keep the feds and the courts out of it -let the people of the states decide by voting.
            People could then chose what kind of state they want to live in. Things would shake down peacefully and the tension level would go down.

            By the way, per the Declaration of Independance, people have an absolute right to make those choices for themselves. That's liberty.

          • Jim C.

            Curt–if you could get a movement together this idea might have legs. Unfortunately, much like ideas like the flat tax, it's almost too sensible.

            I'd be concerned about decision making and enforcement of law & contracts on the national level in general under such an arrangement. "A house divided" in two can still stand, albeit wobbly–but if it had 50 "moving parts?" I'm not sure that's what the Founders envisioned, either. But there's something attractive about the idea.

          • trickyblain

            "Let's go back and use the constitution….. Let those states whose people want big government have it. Let them tax and regulate themselves as much as they like. Let the state provide as much of the basics of life as they wish, but let them pay for it.
            Let those states who want a more free market economy have it. Shrink and restrict the size of the Federal government to allow the states to collect the tax revenues themselves. "

            But that's not the Constitution. It is, exactly, the system desired by anti-federalists opposed to the Constitution. Federalism, per the Constitution, is big gov't.

          • curt cummins

            Trickyblain,
            The power to do do the things, that I have suggested is written into the the Constitution. The states have the legal authority to limit the federal power under the 9th and 10th amendments The feds have usurped that authority by skimming the cream of the tax revenues off and making the states knuckle under to get the money back.
            The states need to take the tax money and the power away from the feds. The federal govenmant controls this country because the states and the people allow them to. If enough of the states and the people refuse to co-operate with the federal government, they will give in.
            The only way for them to force their will on the states and the people is to use the military, and I don't think they can get the military to go along with that. Also, this country has 50 state militaries, that might object to that.
            The military might be induced to fire on Americans who are attpting to dissolve the Union, But I douubt that they'll kill their own people to allow Washington to collect taxes.

  • Mahdi Al-Dajjal

    I believe the Totalitarian Progressive Left will never let go of the power they've worked for the last 100 years to obtain. All we've seen them do for since Jan 2009 is work to grow gov't and consolidate that power.

    As such, leaving the Union may be the only option remaining for a large number of us.

  • debarrio

    Irronically, Walt (no-neck) Williams was my favorite White Sox Player when I was 12.
    (1973)

  • gpcase

    Returning to the topic of the article, I believe any serious and honest person will acknowledge that our federal government no longer limits itself to its enumerated powers, as required by the 10th Amendment. We are facing a constitutional crisis brought on by the usurpation of our individual rights. This occured because the Supreme Court failed to interpret the intent of the words and instead chose to see the document as living (i.e., maleable). When contracts become maleable, they lose their power.

  • gpcase

    This crisis currently manifests itself in the prospect of runaway debt, potential hyper-inflation and financial insolvency due to entitlement spending and use of a fiat currency. The government, deeply in debt, chose the enact a new entitlement based on dishonest calculations (e.g., 10 years of revenue with 6 years of expenditures) that will dictate to health care providers what medical practices and procedures are acceptable which will lead to some form of rationing and thus a further loss of liberty.

    The crisis will not go away on its own so we are obligated to keep the discussion open and cordial, provided our liberal friends can handle a discussion without playing the race card or some other insult designed to stop debate rather than face reality.

    • Jim C.

      I think in order to address this crisis, you have to show good faith. Obviously, most liberals are not as concerned with what you call "loss of liberty" in terms of, say, health care. Maybe they should be. But the point is, we only hear about this "constitutional crisis" when democrats are in power. If this "slide" has been happening since the New Deal, clearly, we have problems that go deeper than mere partisanship. People cite Reagan as a speedbump on this slide, but if they're intellectually honest, they'll admit even Reagan wasn't the "Reagan" so cherished today. (And I liked Reagan to an extent).

      • Jim C.

        When I look at the TEA partiers, I see people who have the same concerns I do. But I also think they are dupes for the guys on Wall Street, and the military industrial complex that has been effectively directing our foreign policy since Eisenhower's warning. (I know–you guys roll your eyes at "military-industrial complex").

        In my unscientific and unimportant opinion, I think the Right in this country doesn't know what the center looks like anymore. This is a lot like the Left in this country in the 70s. Reagan was a breath of fresh air–so is Mr. Obama. But when Reagan claimed "government was the problem," he in effect ceded that government to business interests–something Teddy Roosevelt and many others had warned against. If we can both consider that (let's say) Reagan was perhaps right in principle and wrong in practice, maybe there's your common ground. I don't know.

      • gpcase

        Suggesting that since Republicans didn't extend benefits to millions more while they were in power doesn't mean they don't show good faith. That's a red herring because it doesn't speak to the issue of constitutionalism. Its a diversion designed to get us off point so we can endlessly bicker about which party has better served the needs of the majority.

        • coyote3

          Most of the arguements on these issues are irrelevant, and that is being generous. The merits of legislation/regulation have absolutely nothing to do with exceeding delegated powers, and thereby acting illegally. I will agree that this has been going on a lot longer than the stated 20 years. It is just another form of pandering that has been developed into a science. "Serving needs" is neither the responsibility nor proper role of government under our system (regardless of how bad it is needed/or not) with the delegated power to do so. If they want to give the government a power it does not have, then amend the constitution to grant that power, if they can get enough support. The people in D.C., both Democrats and Republicans, either don't know the difference or don't care, and I suspect it is the latter. Problem is the people don't care either, and therefore are not worthy of the liberty they have, or more appropriately have lost. Frankly, I am somewhat surprised we get any young people to fight for this place, I know I would have to think long and hard if I was told to do it again, even if I was able.

          • coyote3

            Oops, should have read "without the delegated power to do so."

  • courtnye

    Hey, where do we go, and where do I sign up. How many people in this country are dreaming of the lottery, and where they would go with their family. Well, that isn't going to happen, and most or almost all are stuck right where they are. I am amazed still at the folks just here where I live that DON'T care one way or the other what's going on, just living their life…….until it's to late?? My prayer is that folks would wake up, protest, tea party, or just go to the polls. I don't think the masses of people realize where this country is headed, Someone please tell me what I can do for my little neck of the woods, WHAT can we do???

  • coyote3

    Well I am not optimistic. The American people have signed on to this type of thing. It has been going on for a long time. It was done under the name of social justice, and is now accepted. It was done in response to "suffering", which is really a way to abrogate the rule of law. I had a professor who had the courage to speak about it many years ago. I thought he was to the left, but the more I listened, he was probably closer to a Libertarian. He could go so far left, it began to sound like right, and so far right it began to sound like left. He explained that once you begin dividing up people into groups, and then begin to address their "grievances", you have to address their expectations. The problem with that is that it becomes a cycle. The expectations become ever increasing. They are endless. He remarked that if the U.S. went down that path, a time would come when people would think nothing of, even demand, abrogating, or down right ignoring the limits on government and society, as whole, to satisfies the expectations, which, if not met, become grievances.

    • Jim C.

      So, the government is in the business of…giving people what they want?

      I think you're right: the American people signed on a long time ago and the ship done sailed.

  • FreedomSeeker

    Williams' idea is fascinating – I think a lot of us have been wondering if we could somehow form a truly free state, like the one this nation used to be. But the practical difficulties of establishing a new state out of current U.S. territory, or of all of us emigrating to one of the current states (New Hampshire, Texas) and seceding from the Union, are enormous and probably insuperable at this time. Remember that "Galt's Gulch" in Atlas Shrugged was a fiction, and required some impossible science-fiction to establish.

  • InformedCitizen

    The only way we can peaceful separate ourselves from the bigots in washington is to spread the truth about how the Federal Government operates. Then everyone has to understand how the left right paradigm operates. Once everyone grasps that it is easy to see how greed and power corrupts all. Too many people brainwashed by CNN, FOX, MSNBC and aren't listening to their own thoughts. That is what the private bankers want…. they want you to think there is no resolution, there is only chaos with out their order….. If everyone turned off the TV, read a book, talked to their neighbor, etc… we will all easily connect. Like we all are now….. keep spreading information…. you have to fight propoganda with the truth. Government presents a problem and then offers the solution. 9/11, War on Terror, Underwear Bomber, Body Scanners for outbound flights when the threat is from coming from the outside on inbound flights, ETC…………..

  • gpcase

    There have always been people warning about the the government ignoring the Constitution. Anti-Federalists, including George Mason and Patrick Henry, warned what would happen if we didn't add specific language to limit federal power. They didn't anticipate progressives and others of the collectivist persuasion inventing a living Constitution.

  • gpcase

    At the heart of the problem you will find a difference in philosophy: individual rights require a strictly limited government. Individual rights are based on a moral code based on rational self-interest, which is itself based on the idea that human beings are rational in the sense that we can understand what's in our best interest and must act to survive and prosper. Because we are rational, we have a right, be it from God or from nature, to exists for our own benefit. We have a right to life, liberty and property and that the pursuit of happiness is itself and end, not a means to someone else's end.

  • gpcase

    The opposite of this moral code is called altruism, or the idea that man is a sacrificial animal because he is irrational, cannot know what's in his best interest and must be controlled by an elite. His needs are selfish and must be sacrificed for the needs of the collective, whether it be the tribe, the race, the religion, or the majority of the people. The first moral code leads to freedom while the seond leads to tyranny.

    • coyote3

      We have a right, whether we are rational or not.

      • gpcase

        Yes, but I'm using the words "rational" and "irrational" in the context of epistimology (theory of knowledge), rather than simply being logical or emotional. It refers to humans being equipped with a conscience, an ability to understand our existence, to think and interpret what is real around us, to hunt and kill to survive, and to shape our own destiny. An irrational mind would mean we are merely animals who rely on instinct alone to survive. If we are no better than animals, those with the most power will justify on moral grounds the necessity to control the masses. All forms of collectivism require that individuals sacrifice their selfish needs to the collective because they are little more than irrational creatures who cannot know whats in their best interest.

        • coyote3

          I knew what you were talking about. However, there is no "justification" moral or otherwise for controlling the "masses" animals or otherwise. They can say that, but that doesn't change the fact that even if what they say "is" true, you still have the 'right" and doesn't justify their position. Oh, I agree, they may "use" that, and convince people to submit, but that doesn't change anything regarding rights.

        • Jim C.

          Well, this might be an issue to take up with Jesus Christ, Himself.

          I'm just saying…

  • trickyblain

    Get real. What freedoms have you lost? I'm not talking about what you are scared of losing, what have you actually lost as a result of gov't action? Contrary to Williams' assertion, the expansion of gov't power and spending has been going on one hell of alot more than the last few decades. Civil war, anyone? And over the last century, after ascending as the world's premier power, do those who would return to the Articles of Confederacy really have a valid argument?

    Folks, the Constitution is all about big gov't. Big, centralized gov't. That's why it had trouble passing. Modern conservatives like to equate themselves to the Madisons and Hamiltons, but they are much more akin to anti-federalist like George Clinton. George Clinton was a great, although obscure, historical figure. But he was wrong. If his side had won out, the US would look just like the nation Williams would have after succeeding – a third world joke.

    BTW: when is FPM going to run a piece condemning Israel’s universal health care?

    • coyote3

      Certainly, the Constitution is about big government. Those powers delegated are mostly exclusive, but it doesn't change the fact that the federal government has only those powers which are delegated to it. As far as Israel, or any other countries' healthcare, the issue is irrelevant. It is not about cost, good, bad or indifferent.

      • Jim C.

        So what freedoms were lost, I think he asked.

        • gpcase

          My property taxes pay for non-competitive schools. I have no choice in the matter, I am not free. My paycheck is reduced to pay for inefficient entitlement programs that provide services that I would prefer to purchase privately. I have no choice in the matter, I am not free. I am forced to use a fiat currency that loses value over time, compelling everyone to spend rather than save. I have no choice in the matter. I am not free. The Supreme Court has ignored the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution, yet a majority of voters to date has not found it grievious enough to change. I retain the freedom to leave, but where will I find a truly free nation in this day and age? I choose to stay and resist…and there are more of me than you, they just need to learn what's been happening and find the courage to win back their freedom. Time will tell.

          • trickyblain

            You can't lose a freedom you never had. States have been funding public schools for the entire history of our nation.

  • David J. Evans

    The problem is, to paraphrase a famous remark, "You may not be interested in the corrupt tyrants who rule us from Washington, but the corrupt tyrants who rule us from Washington are interested in YOU."

    Face it: a Congressman or Senator is far more likely to be a sexual pervert, drunkard, wife-beater, swindler, tax evader, extortionist, or an outright traitor, than the average man on the street. And yet this is the sort of career criminal who demands control over every aspect of our lives.

    Then there's the America-hating Marxist-Leninist who currently sits in the Oval Office. Working feverishly to turn the country into another Zimbabwe or Venezuela, he reaches for the Constitution when an ordinary citizen would reach for the Charmin. And while he refuses to hold terrorists behind barbed wire or defend us with nuclear weapons, mark my word–he'll have no such hesitation when he deals with domestic dissent. Just wait and see.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/lovesjeeves lovesjeeves

    Obama's plan of taking away our freedoms is insidious. Pay now, then suffer the loss of freedom for generations to come. Americans, under this Administration, are like a doomed little fish dropped in tepid water, gradually heated in increasing increments so that the final phase of demise will barely be noticed

  • http://www.whycanadamustend.com Tony Kondaks

    Canada long ago reached the point at which two peoples with irreconcilable differences live within the bosom of one nation.

    But it is in denial.

    So much so that Canada looks the other way as Quebec violates basic human rights and segregates its citizens into two separate and distinct civil rights categories.

    In 1995, Quebec separatists came within less than 1/2 of 1 percent of winning a referendum on becoming independent. Next time, they won't lose.

  • freedom fighter

    A gang of thieves keeps returning to my home and takes whatever they want. They have me out-numbered and out-gunned. It started with a few items but now they have more than me. They say if I'll just pay them a protection tax, they will just take it out of my paycheck and they will stop threatening me. If I refuse, they will come and take everything.

  • Len Powder

    Just as Christianity and Islam have irreconcilable differences which will one day be settled by violence, so are the differences between Progressives and Conservatives. Progressives think that by seizing power and imposing tyranny on everyone they will finally achieve their goal of implementing the government of Big Brother. Hardly! What they are achieving is the inevitable divorce of those who oppose and those who defend the Constitution of the United States. Not since the Civil War has America been so divided on principle and ideology. Instead of the north and the south, today the battle lines are defined by "red" and "blue" states, by those who support big government and those who despise it, by those who want complete submission and dependence on government and those who want government out of their lives and fortunes. The clash is coming. It has occurred too many times in history to think we are too enlightened to see it again. Mr. Williams is one of the few people who forsees the inevitable.

  • visitor

    i like his tone. I don't see any reason we can't just agree to separate. I'd give half my net worth lump sum to buy out. i don't want to fight friends, but we can't live together as I am not willing to do what they'll do to us.

    I'm tired of spending my effort paying and opposing them. Losing control left and right at an accelerating clip.

    they can't make us love their ideas, they insult us, we totally see the world in profoundly different ways. in my philosophy they can do as they consensually choose amongst themselves next door to me. in theirs all must submit to what they see as solutions to the Plan, whatever they decide that is. when I explain that the first thing I think about when I consider a law is whose rights are being violated and who I will have to threaten and why. I get blank stares at such a notion, apparently the mechanism at work in each law is not something worth dwelling upon.

    we simply carry on with the Constitution as we all understand it, add a few amendments to keep the Fire of State well in the hearth where it belongs, strip the deadwood law.

  • visitor

    I want to openly make originalism essentially one of the pillar doctrines of law, we each deserve to be able agree on what words mean and have the agreed upon meaning stay put until further notice, no matter how long that is. properly hewn ideas age well. this of course means negative rights need also be consitutionally specified as the legal basis for all rights.

    gold standard, constitutionally limited VAT of 2%, no income taxes. in the name of reasonable civil govt, fee for service type taxation acceptable for infrastructural support, we're all reasonable folks.

    we maintain a normal American immigration stance, all are welcome so long as you go through the process like anyone else, and melting with us who are welcoming you is the goal.

    with a gold standard, negative rights, the energy, spirit and optimism of our ideals and the power of Liberty at our backs, we need never look back. We all understand the chaos/stasis which will rapidly consume what we leave.

  • Scipio

    The most hearten aspect of this era of political turmoil and metastasizes of Federal usurpations is the belated recognition of the limits imposed on the federal government by the US Constitution. Let us now make the restoration of the US Constitution the centerpiece of the coming national revival.

    Obamacare is just a catalyst that taints the whole welfare state. We need to seize the day and hammer away at almost a centuries worth of excess by the Federal government. This comes from confronting lies:

    1.The Constitution is what the Federal Judiciary says it is. Wrong it is what its clear language says.
    2.The Welfare state is legal. Wrong it is illegal
    3.Expanding the federal government’s authority requires a living constitution. Wrong it requires constitutional amendments.
    4.Electing good people is the cure. Wrong an informed electorate is the cure.

    Leadership and clarity of goals are required.
    This is our finest hour if we have leadership that inspires us to chain the monster by restoring constitutional government.

    Let’s also acknowledge Republican perfidy in illegally expanding government.

  • kitteh noms

    Jim C is right! The economic blue state powerhouses like California and Michigan do support the rest of our redneck lazy asses!
    Or not.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/BS61 BS61

      Sorry – I gave you a thumbs down since I didn't see the Or Not!

    • trickyblain

      "Support" is one thing. What Jim C is likely referring to is the fact that the states on the coast that traditionally vote Dem, pay more into the federal treas than what they get back in federal spending. The reverse is true for the poor (economically, education-wise and socially) states that vote Republican. For example, in 2005, California received only $0.78 for every dollar paid in federal taxes. Arkansas received $1.41 for every dollar paid into the fed. That is to say, in terms of federal spending, most of the red states are funding their low-taxes on the backs of the successful people in the states that produce the vast majority of our nation's GDP. It's true!

      For more, visithttp://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685….

  • kitteh noms

    I wasn’t aware I was being financially saved by the economic powerhouse blue states-like California or Michigan..oh wait..

  • gpcase

    I have a modest proposal: let the states who wish to return to original Constitutional principles have a trial separation for a period of say 20 years. The "Free States of America" would likely enact a gold-backed currency and institute a laissez faire economic policy, replacement of all income taxes with some variation of a low, flat Fair Tax, supplemented with objectively defined and implemented laws to protect individuals against violence, theft and fraud, enforce contracts as well uphold civil damages for loss of life, limb or property. The resultant economic growth, freedom and prosperity would act as a powerful magnet, including much of the world's investment capital and innovative entrepreneurs. Competition would decide which system is best.

  • gpcase

    But its just a dream: the collectivists will fight to the death before they would allow a real competitor – it took them decades to reign in the United States so they know such an experiment would destroy them. Lets face it: we must either be resigned to the fact that we are dying a slow death, and are thus condemning our children to a worse fate, or we decide if freedom is worth fighting for and organize, vote, march, stage sit-ins, teach-ins and engage in massive non-violent civil disobedience. Dr. King showed the way, we just have to follow.

  • Robert

    The term to use is not “conservative” but “American”. Neo-Marxists (Liberals) are not Americans. They do not believe in nor practice any of the founding principles of America.
    It all started when Marxists took over the universities. Then over several generations the whole upper professional classes were indoctrinated into Marxism, even if they don’t know it.
    Now, the gates have slammed shut and Americans are beginnning to understand they are trapped. If Obama could pass “healthcare”, despite the threat to politicians jobs, think how easy it will be for him to pass “immigration reform” and “felon voting”…because it will ensure those same jobs. Just watch, they will make 25 million criminal invaders and felons voting citizens just before November….it will complet their Coup. With millions of fake citizens voting…real Americans will face never winning another election again and will have all their freedoms voted away by a tyranny of the majority.
    Then Obama will organize his Red Guard to protect the revolution….just as Mao did. It will be very, very, nasty. Be prepared.

    • trickyblain

      Robert, you are delusional. You are an American, and so is the majority that voted for Obama. The Constitution establishes big gov't — that's what you people don't seem to get. The anti-federalists opposed big gov't and favored localized power. And they were defeated by the federalists. Do you know what a federalist is?

      A "coup" is neither capitalized nor is it a democratic election. And, of course, the Dems would need a Constitutional amendment to enable noncitizens to vote….care to wager any money on your prediction?

  • http://intensedebate.com/profiles/leesprint leesprint

    Robert:
    I think you see the freight train coming correctly.
    And if the "coup" you mention fails, a more straightforward one will be tried by the Demonrats if Obama loses in 2012. Watch for strange, blackmailable people in the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

  • Harry Kirmon

    The solution is simple. Get enough people to reach critical mass and refuse to pay taxes. 30 million or so ought to do it. That will bring the Government down, and forever change the
    game from the tyranny of the majority.

    • trickyblain

      Bring down the gov't? Harry, you are advocating treason! Why not get the people you want in power through constitutionally-prescibed channels (that is, get them elected)?

  • Darla

    Not Texas, let's start right here in Alaska! We are self sufficient, and, really, just want to be left ALONE. That's why we CAME here! Come on up and let's secede!

  • netwit

    Yanks, why not go whole hog and make it a 4-way split? In the Northwest the whites with a new Christian-oriented constitution (Mormons look out!); under them the hispanics, "Mexamerica," comprising southern California and the sand states (Texas may be a problem here, but nothing a bit of mass migration – or mass Alamo – can't overcome!); east of them the blacks, "free at last" (to work or starve); finally, in the Northeast the Jews and all the other Ellis Island types, one nation under the New York Times.

    • trickyblain

      Four is not enough. You left out my Northern California — not the northwest, and really, really not southern Cal or a "sand state" (that's good!). One nation under Jerry Garcia?

  • El Chupa Cabra

    Part One

    I have not read every post so forgive me if my thoughts repeat anothers.
    ..I'm not for secession yet. I still feel the need to fight the good fight, However my self and others have discussed the issue of Texas independance. For those who believe the left will never let Texas go I say you are wrong. Sure they'll posture and rattle sabers. Maybe even a few may hundred have to perish in a couple of determined stands, but american liberals do not have the stomach nor inclination to for a principled fight. They shrink from real meaningful conflict and are only adept at destroying the host body over time from within like a parasite. …..continued on next post.

  • El Chupa Cabra

    Part Two

    ……Besides Texas, I'm pretty sure Oklahoma would partner with Texas. Possibly one more border state would as well. After time the folks in places like Wyoming and Utah may wish to join the new United States as well. The liberals will continue to suck the life out of the old US till other states (Oil Rich) Western and Southern decides to part ways. When the old United States is just a hollow empty shell of itself, We from the true New United States will take back the rest of our original nation. This could only happen because of the success that comes with being a true constitutional republic that believes in the free market.

  • Brian

    This discussion is 70 years late and too late now. 50% want more government, 25% just want more beer, so the rest of us are just going to have to live with it.

  • http://ukbirdtables.co.uk/goto/Go_to_site/396/ window bird feeders

    It is actually a nice and useful piece of info. I’m satisfied that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.