More than 30 states have a serious secession movement

[RetiredGySgt]

The Sheep just don't get it. Pretty scary how far gone some people are >>>>

W.H. Petition Calls for Stripping Citizenship and Exile for Anyone Who Signs Petition to Secede | The Weekly Standard

There cannot be a peaceful separation. The circimstances that would lead to a peaceful separation can never be present because if people were in agreement there, they would have no need to separate to begin with.

Doesn't change the fact that LEGALLY one can ask to leave.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberals want everyone who signed the secession petition to be stripped of their citizenship and exiled.

W.H. Petition Calls for Stripping Citizenship and Exile for Anyone Who Signs Petition to Secede | The Weekly Standard

It's not a bad idea. People can move out of the country on the government dime. Of course liberals are really stupid because secessionists can't be deported to anyplace. It would though, make it much easier to become citizens of a more hospitable country.

secessionists should just cross over into Mexico, steal back in, declare themselves to be illegals and they'll get amnesty and FREE STUFF.

I knew a young Australian man who got a girlfriend and overstayed his visa. When she got pregnant he didn't want to pay child support but didn't have the money to go home so he turned himself in to INS and was deported. Free and clear.

I can see someone transferring their assets overseas, then being sent into exile with the US government having no claim on their income as American Citizens. It would make perfect sense. They would even have travel expenses paid. It's not like American citizenship has much value anymore. Especially not for an innovator, inventor or entrepreneur.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Sheep just don't get it. Pretty scary how far gone some people are >>>>

W.H. Petition Calls for Stripping Citizenship and Exile for Anyone Who Signs Petition to Secede | The Weekly Standard

There cannot be a peaceful separation. The circimstances that would lead to a peaceful separation can never be present because if people were in agreement there, they would have no need to separate to begin with.

Doesn't change the fact that LEGALLY one can ask to leave.

Never said otherwise.

Be pointless to ask though. A nation that is evil enough to oppress the people and justify secession will never allow it to happen.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Personally, I don't support secession right now, but I can understand why some people do.

People are fed up with high taxes, high and rising prices, the assault on religious freedom, the push for gay marriage, the federal power grab in the medical field, Washington's reckless spending, our mounting debt, elective abortion, the Obama administration's laxity in enforcing our anti-porn laws (yes, many people have noticed this and they do care about it), etc., etc. And they're like, "Fine, you guys want all that, have at it. Just count us out and let us leave in peace and have a place where we can live under the Constitution."

 

[mikegriffith1]

How very ironic to see people who consider themselves to be Americans condemning the idea of peaceful separation, i.e., secession. The principle of peaceful secession was the bedrock principle of the American Revolution--there was only a war because the British would not allow the colonies to leave in peace, and the founding fathers bitterly resented being forced to fight for something that they felt was their natural right. Over and over again the Americans said the colonies had a natural right to be independent of England and that England should allow them to go in peace.

Peaceful separation? When has secession ever lead to peaceful separation> It's only peaceful if everyone agrees to it. If one side or another gets violent, you have a rebellion and war on hand.

And you are wrong. We never claimed we had the right to peacefully separate from Great Britain. Until the Declaration of Independence, we weren't even trying to separate from Great Britain. And The Declaration came after the War started. There was no attempt as peaceful separation. We separated because they were already at war with us.

Read and learn--this is from an article of mine on secession and the American Revolution:

Many Americans today don't understand the American Revolution. Many think it was merely a tax revolt that spiraled into a push for independence. Most Americans don't know that the Patriots wanted peaceful separation and that they resented being forced to fight for their independence. Here are some facts to clarify the history and nature of the American Revolution:

* Taxation without representation was not at the top of the list of Patriots' complaints against the British. Just go read the Declaration of Independence. In fact, in virtually every case, the British repealed taxes on the colonies when the colonies objected to them. One law that increasingly became the focus of Patriot concern was the 1766 Declaratory Act, in which Parliament declared it possessed the authority to govern the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." In response, the colonies asserted that colonial legislatures were equal in power to Parliament. Dr. T. J. Stiles observes that the major points of cability of the colonies to control their own affairs:

Various acts had been passed to restrict what the Americans could manufacture, to limit where they could buy and sell their goods overseas, to tax what they imported, to define where they could settle. (The American Revolution, New York: Perigree Books, 1999, p. 53)

Other historians have made the same point. Dr. Merrill Jensen:

By 1774, the American and British positions on the power of Parliament were irroncilable. (Commentary to Randolph Greenfield Adams: Political Ideas of the American Revolution, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1958, p. 24)

Dr. Lawrence Gipson:

The Declaratory Act was the true causus belli of the American Revolution. (The Triumphant Empire, volume XIII, New York: Knopf, 1974, p. 198)

* It's often overlooked that the colonies virtually declared their independence with the 1774 Declaration of Rights and Grievances (aka Declaration of the Rights of the Colonies), specifically with Article IV, in which the colonies asserted that they were "entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures." Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen note the obvious significance of this claim:

Some historians minimize the significance of the Declaration of Rights and Grievances of 1774 and conlcude that other actions taken by the [Congintental] Congress were more serious, particularly the boycott and the local associations formed to enforce it. All these actions were ambiguous. They were negotiating tactics similar to those that succeeded in securing repeal of the Stamp Act and the Townshend taxes. . . .

But Article IV was different. For the first time, the colonists stuck at the heart of British rule. This was not a temporary negotiating position. It called for abolition of the existing relations with Britain. . . . The claim in Article IV was--and was seen as--a major step toward independence. (Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2005, p. 109).

* The colonies repeatedly requested various degrees of self-determination and autonomy under nominal British control. The British rejected these requests--until it was too late.

* "Until it was too late? You mean the British eventually agreed?", you ask? Yes, they did, big time. Very few Americans are aware of this. No history textbook that I've read (and I've read a few) mentions this fact. But, yes, the British offered the colonies "all that even the radicals had wanted" (Norman Gelb, Less Than Glory, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1984, p. 70). They offered the colonies complete control of their own affairs, and all that was asked in return was allegiance to the king and the empire, which was "little more than a formality" (Ibid.). However, by then the momentum for independence was too strong to turn back. The British waited too long to make the offer, but they did make it.

* The Patriots repeatedly argued that they were within their legal and natural rights to desire independence from England, and that was the main reason they resented labels like "traitor" and "rebel." In fact, some of the Patriots went to great length to argue that their colonial charters actually implied a right for the colonies to be independent if they so desired or that independence was at least consistent with the principles of their colonial charters and with the British constitution itself. None other than Alexander Hamilton said,

Besides the clear voice of natural justice in this respect [i.e., natural law], the fundamental principles of the English constitution are in our favor. ("A Full Vindication," December 15, 1774, p. 1. My copy of this document comes from Stiles' The American Revolution, pp. 55-58)

* The Patriots bitterly resented the British attempt to force the colonies to remain part of the empire against their will. They regarded the British use of foce as unjust, illegal, and contrary to natural law. They argued that separation and independence were the colonies' "natural right," and that the British should respect that right. The Patriots called the British "unjust invaders," "robbers," and "tyrants," among other things.

* British moves toward emancipation and limiting the slave trade, however small they may have been in reality, set off alarm bells in all the colonies, not just in the South. From New England to the Deep South, there was fear that the British were going to start exerting control over slavery and the slave trade in the colonies with the aim of ending both. New England was making fantastic fortunes from the slave trade. The two largest slave trade ports were both Northern ports. Plus, slavery was alive and well in many parts of the North at the time. The 1772 anti-slavery Somersett decision in England sent shock waves through the colonies. The vast majority of the reports on the decision appeared in Northern newspapers. In 1777 the Continental Congress passed an amendment that prohibited the Somersett decision from being applied anywhere in the colonies. This is all discussed in detail in the Blumrosens' book Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution.

* If the ending of slavery and/or the slave trade is the sole criterion by which one judges the Revolution, then one would have to wish the British had won. Slavery vanished in England by the early 1800s, and the British energetically sought to end the slave trade. When the war began, the British offered emancipation to any American slaves who would fight against their Patriot masters. Tens of thousands of American slaves flocked to British lines, and close to 20,000 fought for the British. Some 15,000 American slaves left with the British when the war ended. If the British had won the war, slavery in America almost certainly would have ended long before 1865, and the American slave trade would have ended even earlier.

* The Declaration of Independence was nothing more or less than a declaration of secession. The Patriots called it "independence" and "separation." These are all different words for the same thing--the natural right of the people of a colony or state to withdraw their colony or state from the control of the national government. ("Secede" and "secession" only entered the vocabulary because the states had "aceded" to the Constitution. So, it was thought logical to use words like "secede" and "secession" to describe the act of rescinding that acession. If one reads Southern secession documents, one finds the terms "independence," "self-determination," and "separation" used repeatedly.)

* The British tolerated many, many incidents of violence and threats against British officials without using those incidents as an excuse for war. British officials' homes were burned down, some officials were roughed up by mobs, some officials were threatened with physical harm if they sought to carry out their duties, etc., etc. Yet, the British did not use these events as pretexts for an invasion. Only later, after battles were fought and considerable blood was spilled, did the British decide an invasion was required.

* The first major act the British took against the colonies was to impose a blockade, which the Patriots regarded as illegal and unjust. In response, the "colonies and Congress immediately reacted by issuing letters of marque that authorized individual American ship owners to seize British ships in a practice known as privateering; further, the act moved the American colonists more towards the option of complete independence, as the King was now declaring his 'subjects' out of his protection, and levying war against them without regards to distinction as to their ultimate loyalty or their petitions for the redress of grievances." John Adams viewed the act as severing the colonies' ties with England and as a de facto (albeit unintended) granting of independence:

It throws thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties... It may be fortunate that the act of independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.

* When Parliament voted on using force against the colonies, about one-fourth of the members of Parliament voted against the use of force. Many British political thinkers and politicians argued that it was wrong to use force to compel the colonies to remain part of the empire.

* When the Declaration of Independence was issued in July 1776, there were no British troops on the American mainland (there were a few on an island outside Charleston harbor and some on an island in New York harbor, but that was it--the British didn't control one inch of soil in the colonies when the Declaration was issued). The last British troops in America had departed from Boston in March following George Washington's siege of the city, several months before the Declaration of Independence was issued. The Patriots dearly wished the British would not return and that the British would allow the colonies to leave in peace. That, of course, did not happen. The British did return; they invaded and tried to force the colonies to rejoin the empire.

If you're saying to yourself, "Wow, the American Revolution actually closely resembles the Civil War, with the Patriots playing the same role and using the same arguments that the Confederates later did, and with the British playing the same role and using the same arguments that the Republicans later did," you're right.

SUGGESTED READING:

The Declaration of Righs and Grievances of 1774
The Declaration of Rights and Grievances - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775
<TITLE>Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms - 1775

The Rights of the Colonists, 1772
The Rights of the Colonists

Connecticut Resolutions on the Stamp Act, December 10, 1765
Avalon Project - Connecticut Resolutions on the Stamp Act: December 10, 1765

Less Than Glory: A Revisionist's View of the American Revolution (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1984), by Norman Gelb. By "revisionist" Gelb means "British."

The American Revolution (New York: Perigree Books, 1999), by T. J. Stiles

Slave Nation: How Slavery United the Colonies and Sparked the American Revolution (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2005), by Alfred and Ruth Blumrosen

E Pluribus Unum: The Formation of the American Republic 1776-1790, Second Edition (Indianapolis, Indiana: Liberty Press, 1979), by Forrest McDonald

 

[freedombecki]

Personally, I don't support secession right now, but I can understand why some people do.

People are fed up with high taxes, high and rising prices, the assault on religious freedom, the push for gay marriage, the federal power grab in the medical field, Washington's reckless spending, our mounting debt, elective abortion, the Obama administration's laxity in enforcing our anti-porn laws (yes, many people have noticed this and they do care about it), etc., etc. And they're like, "Fine, you guys want all that, have at it. Just count us out and let us leave in peace and have a place where we can live under the Constitution."

I don't like having 1 vote when any Democrat who wants to play omuerta ball gets 30 votes. I see no point in voting in the future in such elections. None.

 

[Wehrwolfen]

More than 30 states have a serious secession movement​

Glenn Beck
11.13.2012

The White House website contains a section dedicated to letting the people’s voice be heard. Got an idea for a petition? Got enough signatures? The White House promises it will “be reviewed” and that they will “issue a response” to it. Should be interesting to see how the White House responds to the thirty plus states who have garnered enough signatures to secede from the United States.

“Can I ask you a quick question? Who thinks it’s a good idea to put your name on a petition secede from the United States of America and give it to President Obama?” Glenn said on radio this morning.

According to TheBlaze, over thirty states have petitions for secession submitted to White House with over one thousand signatures each. The Texas petition alone has over 40,000. According to WhiteHouse.gov, petitions with over 25,000 signatures are supposed to receive the attention of the President.

“So after the election, what did people start doing? In 27 states, people started to ask for a peaceful secession from the United States of America. Now how do you think that’s going to work out?” Glenn wondered. “You’re putting your name on a list that goes directly to the White House and you’re putting your name on a list and say ‘Yep, I believe we should secede. I believe there should be a civil war.’ That’s really smart.”



(Excerpt)

Read more:
More than 30 states have a serious secession movement – Glenn Beck

 

[Sherry]

Yeah, I see some audits headed their way.

 

[candycorn]

More than 30 states have a serious secession movement​

Glenn Beck
11.13.2012

The White House website contains a section dedicated to letting the people’s voice be heard. Got an idea for a petition? Got enough signatures? The White House promises it will “be reviewed” and that they will “issue a response” to it. Should be interesting to see how the White House responds to the thirty plus states who have garnered enough signatures to secede from the United States.

“Can I ask you a quick question? Who thinks it’s a good idea to put your name on a petition secede from the United States of America and give it to President Obama?” Glenn said on radio this morning.

According to TheBlaze, over thirty states have petitions for secession submitted to White House with over one thousand signatures each. The Texas petition alone has over 40,000. According to WhiteHouse.gov, petitions with over 25,000 signatures are supposed to receive the attention of the President.

“So after the election, what did people start doing? In 27 states, people started to ask for a peaceful secession from the United States of America. Now how do you think that’s going to work out?” Glenn wondered. “You’re putting your name on a list that goes directly to the White House and you’re putting your name on a list and say ‘Yep, I believe we should secede. I believe there should be a civil war.’ That’s really smart.”



(Excerpt)

Read more:
More than 30 states have a serious secession movement – Glenn Beck

No dickweed.

States do not have a petition. Individuals do. You can petition the government for anything. That is what has happened. Whackjobs in these different states have started a petition drive and morons like you have signed up for it and mis-interpreted it.

You're making LGS look sane by comparison and I didn't think that was possible.

 

[Truthseeker420]

They tried that once and got their ass kicked. Just because you can hunt deer...as the south found out it's a lot harder when the deer shoot back.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

There's KKK chapters in 35+ states, in the grand scheme of things neither means much.

 

[kidrocks]

Glenn Beck?


Bwahahahahahhahaahahha!

The dittoheads are so amusing and entertaining.

 

[bucs90]

Beck and the right wing nuts spun this. The white house has a place where citizens can start their own petition for ANYTHING they want. The WH did it to promote citizens having a voice.

The citizens created the seccession petitions. Beck made it sound like Obama offered the idea just to see who would sign up. Pathetic. But some folks buy whatever he says.

 

[occupied]

Some folks are serious about Star Wars, it does not mean they are serious about reality. Fantasy worlds where states just peacefully break away and do better are about as real as the happy little Ewoks on Endor.

 

[Dot Com]

Glenn Beck?


Bwahahahahahhahaahahha!

The dittoheads are so amusing and entertaining.

I KNEW Wehrwolfen was a tinfoiler

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It’s a pathetic fantasy to which a tiny percentage of partisan rightists have retreated.

 

[Cowman]

Newsflash: Retards live in 100% of US states and territories.

 

[TheOldSchool]

This is a link to a petition with over 12,000 signatures to deport those people who want to secede. Feel free to sign lol

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...aw-their-state-united-states-america/dmQl1bXL

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a link to a petition with over 12,000 signatures to deport those people who want to secede. Feel free to sign lol

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...aw-their-state-united-states-america/dmQl1bXL

Really? I'm old school myself Why don't you bring your ass to North Carolina and fucking try it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They tried that once and got their ass kicked. Just because you can hunt deer...as the south found out it's a lot harder when the deer shoot back.

Different time shot bus. We have lot more guns than the last time. However for every 1 confederate killed 3 Yankees were killed. So if you want to think you'll get the same results try it.