Seven States Qualify for Secession Response from White House.

robert38-55robert38-55 Senior MemberPosts: 3,621 Senior Member
Folks I hate to keep :deadhorse: so to speak,but I feel this National issue may have merit to it. History is History, and we did have a civil war in this county between the years of 1861 and 1865. The civil war was actually about States Rights. Doesn't this look like a carbon copy of what happened in the USA during 1861-1865? Isn't all this talk about sucession how the US civil war actually started? Remember,those who donot learn from History are doomed to repeat it.

The petitions for secession from the U.S. filed by Texas, Louisiana, and five other states have collected more than 25,000 signatures each, which the White House website says is enough for review and response

WASHINGTON - Citizens from more than 40 states have filed petitions with the White House seeking to secede from the union, and by Wednesday, seven states had gathered enough signatures to qualify for a response to the largely symbolic protest.

The petitions, which have been signed by a small percentage of state residents, have virtually no chance of succeeding. The United States' bloodiest conflict, the 1861-1865 Civil War, erupted after 11 states withdrew from the union.

The White House has set up a "We the People" page on its website that allows Americans to file petitions on issues of concern. If a petition collects 25,000 signatures, the website says, the administration will review and respond to it.

The petition filed by Texas residents has racked up about 100,000 signatures. Six others from Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee have collected 30,000.

Among the seven states, only Florida gave its electoral votes to Democratic President Barack Obama in last week's election.

The Texas petition says the United States is suffering from economic troubles stemming from the federal government's failure to reform spending. It also complains of alleged rights abuses committed by agencies like the Transportation Security Administration.

"Given that the state of Texas maintains a balanced budget and is the 15th largest economy in the world, it is practically feasible for Texas to withdraw from the union," it said.

A counter-petition has been filed calling for the state capital Austin to secede from Texas and remain part of the United States

http://news.msn.com/politics/seven-states-qualify-for-secession-response-from-white-house-3
"It is what it is":usa:

Replies

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    A counter-petition has been filed calling for the state capital Austin to secede from Texas and remain part of the United States

    http://news.msn.com/politics/seven-states-qualify-for-secession-response-from-white-house-3

    I might sign that one, myself. They could fence off about 10 acres on I-35 so the feds could keep them supplied with health food, distilled water, and marijuana.
  • ace7644ace7644 Member Posts: 55 Member
    People are crazy. Why would you just want to up and quit the greatest country on earth because it's going in the wrong direction or the election didn't go your way? People are getting soft on both sides, weather it be the wimpy "I'm offended by everything" liberals, or the "I'm going home and taking my ball with me" conservatives. Stop whining and start being American again!
  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    The problem most folks have doesn't stem just from the election. The nation is in the worst shape it has ever been in. I don't believe jumping ship is the right thing to do, but if there were enough names on that petition, it would be enough to put things into serious perspective. Being a leader of a nation with no citizens is like being principal of a home school...
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • steffen19ksteffen19k Member Posts: 255 Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Regardless of the validity of the request or lack off, Obama will simply address this (if ever brought up by the press to him directly) by labeling the folks that started/signed the petitions as "fringe" he needs to ignore to concentrate on more important stuff like covering up for the Fast and Furious or Bengazi screw-ups. He will (if we get any reaction at all) try to make it a single point in some QA session that he will swiftly dismiss. Remember this is a president that has not even done a press conference in months. He feels NO NEED to listen or answer to any of us.

    Ok, bear with me hear as I play this out in my head. According to the above quote, you seem to say that the secessionist attitude is justified???

    I mean, if the president doesn't feel he needs to answer to his constituents, especially the ones that didn't vote for him, then the moves taken so far are at least partially legitimate???

    And if the petitions for secession are at least tolerable, then now that they are on the table, what are the potential endgame options and what should joe shmoe on the street be doing about it to precipitate a legitimate and acceptable ending?

    I don't mind if a shooting war starts, (it would at least guarantee some people employment) but is this nation still tough enough, with all its hippies and 5th columnists and dumb **** who are more concerned about the next video game release or cell phone mod, or what ever...even remotely capable of pulling through that kind of a turmoil again?
    Here is everything I know about war: Someone wins, Someone loses, and nothing is ever the same again.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,263 Senior Member
    steffen19k wrote: »
    if the president doesn't feel he needs to answer to his constituents, especially the ones that didn't vote for him, then the moves taken so far are at least partially legitimate???

    They're absolutely legitimate, but they're also a complete non-starter. There will never be a peaceful secession- - - - -one state or 30 of them. If the country gets to the point of armed insurrection, the battle lines will be drawn on economic lines, not ideological ones, like some European countries are experiencing. The scum-sucking parasites are rioting at the idea their government-supplied goodies are about to be reduced, and the same thing will happen here once the economy tanks in another year or two of giving the store away to buy votes. The smart people with the financial ability to do so will liquidate their assets and move to some third-world country, and the rest of us will try to hunker down and protect what little the government thugs allow us to keep when the mobs arrive out here in the boondocks!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    For the most part, i agree with Jerry on this.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,945 Senior Member
    ace7644 wrote: »
    People are crazy. Why would you just want to up and quit the greatest country on earth because it's going in the wrong direction or the election didn't go your way?

    For the simple reason that people are tired of being governed by a majority of votes from states - or areas within their states - they've never been to and can't relate to the people within. The cities have been asserting their electoral dominance for many years - even California is pretty much a red state once you get out of L.A. and S.F., and Illinois is almost ENTIRELY a red state with the exception of Cook County.

    The United States was founded on the notion that if you don't feel represented by the government you've got, you can bug out - by any means necessary. The South maintained this view during the Civil War, and I've always thought it rather hypocritical of the the North in saying "no you can't" a mere 80-odd years after that mindset won our independence.

    While we don't have the issue of slavery in the mix this time, we are a country lacking cohesive viewpoints, and I can't say that it's correct to consider ourselves a "Union" any longer. Break the country up into a bunch of small, independent countries, and get rid of the massive Federal tax pool, the human sponges lose their livelihlood right quick. Maybe not a bad thing.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    They're absolutely legitimate, but they're also a complete non-starter. There will never be a peaceful secession- - - - -one state or 30 of them. If the country gets to the point of armed insurrection, the battle lines will be drawn on economic lines, not ideological ones, like some European countries are experiencing. The scum-sucking parasites are rioting at the idea their government-supplied goodies are about to be reduced, and the same thing will happen here once the economy tanks in another year or two of giving the store away to buy votes. The smart people with the financial ability to do so will liquidate their assets and move to some third-world country, and the rest of us will try to hunker down and protect what little the government thugs allow us to keep when the mobs arrive out here in the boondocks!
    Jerry

    Go,Go, Teach, that pretty well describes what is about to happen in this country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:that::that::that::agree:
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    For the simple reason that people are tired of being governed by a majority of votes from states - or areas within their states - they've never been to and can't relate to the people within. The cities have been asserting their electoral dominance for many years - even California is pretty much a red state once you get out of L.A. and S.F., and Illinois is almost ENTIRELY a red state with the exception of Cook County.

    The United States was founded on the notion that if you don't feel represented by the government you've got, you can bug out - by any means necessary. The South maintained this view during the Civil War, and I've always thought it rather hypocritical of the the North in saying "no you can't" a mere 80-odd years after that mindset won our independence.

    While we don't have the issue of slavery in the mix this time, we are a country lacking cohesive viewpoints, and I can't say that it's correct to consider ourselves a "Union" any longer. Break the country up into a bunch of small, independent countries, and get rid of the massive Federal tax pool, the human sponges lose their livelihlood right quick. Maybe not a bad thing.

    Good points you make there BigSlug!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    ace7644 wrote: »
    People are crazy. Why would you just want to up and quit the greatest country on earth because it's going in the wrong direction or the election didn't go your way? People are getting soft on both sides, weather it be the wimpy "I'm offended by everything" liberals, or the "I'm going home and taking my ball with me" conservatives. Stop whining and start being American again!

    This country was founded because a few good men were able to rally about 50% of the people against the tyranny imposed by an all-powerful dictator in a far away place. The other 50% were either clueless about the meaning of freedom, or had a good deal they were hesitant to give up, for some half-baked idea that they could free themselves from the most powerful nation in the world.

    Is the tyranny rejected over 200 years ago so much different from what is being imposed today? You probably would not think so, were the media outlets to actually report on what the government does and actually ask questions about the constitutionality of some of those actions.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    This country was founded because a few good men were able to rally about 50% of the people against the tyranny imposed by an all-powerful dictator in a far away place. The other 50% were either clueless about the meaning of freedom, or had a good deal they were hesitant to give up, for some half-baked idea that they could free themselves from the most powerful nation in the world.

    Is the tyranny rejected over 200 years ago so much different from what is being imposed today? You probably would not think so, were the media outlets to actually report on what the government does and actually ask questions about the constitutionality of some of those actions.

    The only difference between then and now, and here it is 235yrs.later, is the Tyrannt Socialist, Marxist, dictator, isn't across the pond, heck he is in our own pond now.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,836 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    " innmevotable"

    Good post! However, I am unable to find this word in the dictionary
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,624 Senior Member
    A serious secession movement involving numerous states would be a breath of fresh air - kinda refeshing the tree of liberty without shedding the blood of tyrants or patriots. Movies like VALKYRIE and SEVEN DAYS IN MAY should be required viewing at the Pentagon and CIA. Hopefully, the COUP against OweBama will go much much smoother.
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Good post! However, I am unable to find this word in the dictionary

    Yea me too Jayhawker all I could find was the pre-fix of in, inn, me, and the root word vote, suffix is able? I thinks it mean not able to vote or does not care to vote on?
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,836 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Sorry guys typo. I meant inevitable :bang:

    I kinda figured that was the case....just jerking your chain :tooth:
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • GunnerK19GunnerK19 Senior Member Posts: 1,083 Senior Member
    I'm surprised Vermont wasn't one of those states, given there's a large secessionist following here...
    I'm a Conservative. How conservative? Only Alex P. Keaton has me beat.

    Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Ruger 10/22, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    I kinda figured that was the case....just jerking your chain :tooth:

    Well to be honest here Jayhawker as smart as Wambli Ska is, I actually thought it was a word!!!! I really,really did.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    GunnerK19 wrote: »
    I'm surprised Vermont wasn't one of those states, given there's a large secessionist following here...

    Hey GunnerK19, I worked with a fellow many years ago that was from Vermont. He told me,then that Vermont had some of the most lax gun laws, and gun carry laws of any one state in the USA. After watching the elections this year, I am under the impression that the demographics have changed drastically in that state? Got any info on this for me?
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,836 Senior Member
    Well to be honest here Jayhawker as smart as Wambli Ska is, I actually thought it was a word!!!! I really,really did.

    His fingers had a seizure....and his spell checker was recovering from a hangover
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • GunnerK19GunnerK19 Senior Member Posts: 1,083 Senior Member
    Hey GunnerK19, I worked with a fellow many years ago that was from Vermont. He told me,then that Vermont had some of the most lax gun laws, and gun carry laws of any one state in the USA. After watching the elections this year, I am under the impression that the demographics have changed drastically in that state? Got any info on this for me?

    Robert, nothing has changed much since I've lived here (1997), the gun laws are great because there really aren't any (no permit or registration required to own or carry open or CCW). As long as your 4473 is okay your all set. The demographics have changed due to young people leaving the state after school because they can't find good jobs, and the Baby Boomers reaching retirement age and leaving the workforce.
    I'm a Conservative. How conservative? Only Alex P. Keaton has me beat.

    Taurus 605 .357, Ruger .45 Vaquero, Ruger 10/22, Colt frontier commemorative .22 SA
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,588 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    For the simple reason that people are tired of being governed by a majority of votes from states - or areas within their states - they've never been to and can't relate to the people within. The cities have been asserting their electoral dominance for many years - even California is pretty much a red state once you get out of L.A. and S.F., and Illinois is almost ENTIRELY a red state with the exception of Cook County.

    The United States was founded on the notion that if you don't feel represented by the government you've got, you can bug out - by any means necessary. The South maintained this view during the Civil War, and I've always thought it rather hypocritical of the the North in saying "no you can't" a mere 80-odd years after that mindset won our independence.

    While we don't have the issue of slavery in the mix this time, we are a country lacking cohesive viewpoints, and I can't say that it's correct to consider ourselves a "Union" any longer. Break the country up into a bunch of small, independent countries, and get rid of the massive Federal tax pool, the human sponges lose their livelihlood right quick. Maybe not a bad thing.

    The urban vs. rural conflict is as old as the country. They are both different lifestyles that appeal to different people but are both necessary for a strong and prosperous country.

    As for the country, while secession may sound like a great idea, it's the surest way towards the demise of wealth and power within this country (or the eventual mini-countries that split off from it, even TX). While we are losing our Hegemony, we are still the most powerful country in the world and will remain so for many decades to come, even if our power is more equally balanced by other powers around the world. Attempting to combat the decline of the country by splitting it up would be like trying to treat a broken leg by amputating it.

    One viable path that I could see possibly working is a shift in power back towards the states. Many of the differences that people are worried about could be effectively handled by letting different states determine on their own the best way to deal with things. The recent state legalization of Marijuana in CO and WA will be a good test to see if this will be possible. This issues has a strong potential to instigate conflict between the state and federal governments. I will be closely following the results as it should be a good indicator of things to come.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    GunnerK19 wrote: »
    Robert, nothing has changed much since I've lived here (1997), the gun laws are great because there really aren't any (no permit or registration required to own or carry open or CCW). As long as your 4473 is okay your all set. The demographics have changed due to young people leaving the state after school because they can't find good jobs, and the Baby Boomers reaching retirement age and leaving the workforce.

    Thanks GunnerK19, first hand information is always the best!!!!!!!!!!! I wish all the rest of the US state would do that!!!!!!!!!!!!! Be a lot less crime,and would make things so simple.
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • robert38-55robert38-55 Senior Member Posts: 3,621 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    His fingers had a seizure....and his spell checker was recovering from a hangover

    OK, Thanks Jay, been there done that a time or two many moons ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    "It is what it is":usa:
  • Hugh DamrightHugh Damright Member Posts: 169 Member
    One viable path that I could see possibly working is a shift in power back towards the states.
    I find it hard to imagine how anything short of secession could result in shifting power back to the States. The federal government is predisposed to grow, and yankees are predisposed to consider States' rights to be heresy. By 1860 many States decided the situation was hopeless.

    The thing is, if the US broke up into two or more sovereignties, wouldn't these sovereignties make a compact for their mutual benefit? Such that there could still be a Union, but less of a consolidation, such that we might then get back to the intended system.


    "My general plan would be to make the states one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic." Thomas Jefferson
  • FiveSevenFiveSeven Member Posts: 289 Member
    I find it hard to imagine how anything short of secession could result in shifting power back to the States. The federal government is predisposed to grow, and yankees are predisposed to consider States' rights to be heresy. By 1860 many States decided the situation was hopeless.

    The thing is, if the US broke up into two or more sovereignties, wouldn't these sovereignties make a compact for their mutual benefit? Such that there could still be a Union, but less of a consolidation, such that we might then get back to the intended system.


    "My general plan would be to make the states one as to everything connected with foreign nations, and several as to everything purely domestic." Thomas Jefferson

    The problem with you theory is this, you are trying to treat the symptom and not the cause. The cause of the whole problem is a lack of liberty. That liberty should reside with the people of the country, not with the states or the federal government. Put simply it is a power struggle between government and people. You could end up with the same problem on a state level as opposed to a federal level. If the government had sat back and said. "The Constitution is the law of the land and not evolving piece of toilet paper for us to wipe our A$$ with" we would not be in the situation we are in now.
    Only the optimists suggest that the future is uncertain. The pessimists have done the math.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.