Secession within the USA?

angry white men cartoon

Some of you got to SECESSION on my post just below this one on how I’ve met Mexican workers here in Los Angeles who totally get how the minimum wage would destroy their chances of being able to afford anything anymore once costs rose to accommodate that minimum wage strain on employers/manufacturers.

SO, since there was quite a conversation on SECESSION which developed somehow out of that, I thought we might want to talk about it here.


WEIGH IN!!   This is an interesting subject!  COULD it happen?  WILL it happen?  Do YOU like the idea?  Is it PRACTICAL?   How bad might it have to get before anybody seriously considered this?   Please be practical, realistic;  it sounds a little “Trumpesque” to hypothesize without realism!!



This entry was posted in America. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Secession within the USA?

  1. bocopro says:

    Wrote about that in this mornin’s rant . . . basic premise being why anybody would want the PotUS job at this juncture what with the malignant carbuncle of Islam metastasizing all over the globe, infrastructure crumbling all around us, entitlements eating up revenue faster than we can produce it, economy in irreversible gastronomical distress, military slipping to below 3rd-world strength . . . .
    Concluded that anyone who actually WANTS that job has to be either an insatiable exhibitionist, a verifiable masochist, or a certifiable twerpist and thereby both unqualified and ineligible for the job.

    Based on the levels of spending mandated by existing law –

    23% on MediCare, MedicAid, and other health programs
    22% on Social Security
    15% on national defense
    18% on various income security programs (federal retirement) and VA benefits
    7% on interest on the debt itself

    the gubmint has less than 15% left of each collected tax dollar to spend on transportation, education, salaries, maintenance, infrastructure, and the dozens of various “essential” agencies that have been built over the years. And in just a decade or so, interest on the debt will have eaten up all of that.

    I don’t see a great lot of difference between what happened in the 1770s, the 1860s, and what will happen in the 2020s based on the ignorance of Murkan voters, particularly the single-issue zealots, and the mistrust of government which grows in direct ratio to the growth of government itself.

    When ballots fail, the popular alternative often turns out to be bullets. I wouldn’t be a’tall su’prized to see Texas tell the fed’ral gubmint to “Pierdete.” I’ve said for many years now that the turn of the next century will see about 6 separate entities in what is now the US, one aligned with Europe, one with California, one with Texas, one along the Gulf Coast, one in the corn and hog belt, and one along the northern tier.


  2. Success in secession would depend upon “who” was President/Commander in Chief at the time of Secession and “who” the seceeding party was at the time of his presidency. If the President was sympathetic to the Cause, I believe that it could very well happen.


  3. geeez2014 says:

    And Vrag, you truly believe a sitting President of the USA would support secession? And that’s even legal? I’d love to talk the legalities…

    Bocopro; I think one has to be truly insane to want the president job, too. And with an ego higher than the Patronas Towers.


  4. Mal says:

    The question comes to mind, what happens if there are disagreements between the different groups? How well would they be able to work together? Would one be responsible or even obligated to help out financially for another in trouble, or would it be like the Europeans now with Greece?
    Ideally, we would simply send those on the Left to Europe, where they already have what they want us to be. You know, the things our Founding Fathers originally left to escape and created a new country. They must be rolling over in their respective graves!


  5. geeez2014 says:

    OFF TOPIC: I watched a tiny bit of the GOP Dinner the other night and caught a few minutes of Cruz’ speech. I kept thinking “My gosh, all I hear is clinking and forks and eating..aren’t they listening?” And, sure enough, I heard that FOX’s John Roberts was there and reported that you couldn’t hear Cruz for the people eating their food “like he wasn’t there”

    I’d have thought any group of people who come to a dinner to hear speeches would at least listen to the speeches…

    Is that NEW YORK VALUES? Maybe Cruz is right?


  6. geeez2014 says:

    And WAIT! The Pope is thanking Greece for having such open hearts and taking in refugees so willingly? WHO’S PAYING FOR THAT? GREEEEECE? BROKE GREECE? WHAT??


  7. Imp says:

    Here’s an interesting point on the legality of secession:

    The United States would never be a party to a lawsuit on the issue because secession, both de facto and de jure, is an extra-legal act of self-determination, and once the States have seceded from the Union, the Constitution is no longer in force in regard to the seceded political body. This same rule applies to the Article I, Section 10 argument against secession. If the Constitution is no longer in force—the States have separated and resumed their independent status—then the Supreme Court would not have jurisdiction and therefore could not determine the “legality” of the move.

    Lincoln violated both constitutional safeguards against coercion by the central government in 1861, of course only if the states remained in the Union, as he insisted they did. If not, war required a declaration from Congress, something Lincoln did not have, and by declaring war, Congress would have recognized the Confederate States as a legitimate government. Either way, Lincoln violated the Constitution, thus rendering the “bloody nose” argument against secession void.


  8. Mustang says:
    The US Constitution does not disallow the secession of any state. Joining the union was always voluntary, which renders voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option. The Civil War did not prove that secession was illegal; it only proved that a president may act unilaterally against the wishes of the states and the people and do so in a most violent way. The confederate states withdrew from the union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully after enduring several years of inequitable and excessive tariffs that was directed against the southern economy. Of course, Lincoln called this a rebellion and a threat to the central government but he failed to explain to anyone how a lawful and peaceful act posed a threat. Remember that it was the union that invaded the southern states, not the other way around, and after the war the states reapplied for admission at the point of a bayonet. The wording of the Texas Constitution pledges loyalty to the US Constitution (rather than to any president or congress), which is often cited as the right to legally secede from the union, but I think all states can secede if that is what the people of that state want to do.


  9. Imp says:

    Bravo Mustang…

    Yes…Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861.

    On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

    Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil – evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

    Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.”


  10. geeez2014 says:

    Great information…thanks, guys. Now let’s talk PRACTICAL: Interstate highways, tariffs from state to state?, …gad, so many things I can’t imagine naming them all. A great benefit would be no DEPT OF EDUCATION, etc etc…except that would probably happen after some years in the area that thought it was all about small gov’t, anyway!?

    Considering how great a country this became and how we wanted Blacks to be part of the American fabric (at least I would), I’m glad the confederacy didn’t win. Although I suppose things would have survived somehow had they not?

    Anybody want to weigh in on what this country (or these countries!!!) might have looked like if things hadn’t gone as they did??


  11. “Bocopro; I think one has to be truly insane to want the president job,”
    Unless one felt called to do it. Which proves their insanity.


  12. Mustang says:

    There did not have to be a civil war. Lincoln should have allowed the states to secede unmolested because in time they would have realized that the union was economically more advantageous to them than a small confederation. And when they reapplied for admission, they would have had to abide by the federal law prohibiting human slavery … problem solved.


  13. As for the Civil War, perhaps if a bunch of rowdy Citadel grads hadn’t fired on Ft. Sumpter, things might have calmed down.
    I know that Texas reserves the right to secede, but I think that was unrecognized by the union.
    Here’s a good link:
    Frankly, as in the 1860’s, it all comes down to use of force. If the state renounce the Constitution, what authority of SCOTUS would it recognize?
    What Mason Dixon line would separate the resulting political bodies?
    If the secessionists were not contiguous, it would be a nightmare, similar but worse than the original confederacy of thirteen states prior to the Constitution,


  14. ” that was unrecognized ” should be ” is unrecognized “


  15. Bob says:

    Secession: Been there, done that. I had lots of kin and ancestors fighting for the South in the Civil War. Lincoln established a precedent. There will be no withdrawal from the Union.

    However, I am in favor of expelling some states. For example, most of those New England states should not exist as stand-alone political entities. Rhode Island, Connecticutt, New Hampshire and Vermont. These states are too small geographically and population wise to deserve two US Senators.

    Plus, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Idaho are like wise too small population wise to deserve two US Senators each.

    Consolidation may be a better idea. Call the New England states, errrr, New England. Combine the Dakotas; combine Montana with Wyoming and Idaho (Wymontaho), and Nevada with Utah.

    Maybe expelling those states is a wrong move, but somehow it makes sense to dismiss California from the Union. It can become its own country. Call it Calexico.


  16. Imp says:

    @Bob…California is already a Spanish name. And why they call Baja California thus, since it’s in Mexico is beyond me. But…I think a majority of the original colonies ought to secede or lose their statehood. Or we separate from them. Ironically, these are the states that least protect freedom and the constitution and should be kicked out of the Union. Then the first states to ratify the Constitution and sign the Dec of Independence.

    “Combine the Dakotas; combine Montana with Wyoming and Idaho (Wymontaho), and Nevada with Utah.”

    Now that…would likely start a new civil war!


  17. Imp says:

    @Z….I think slavery would have ended naturally over the years without any phony civil war. At least as soon as automation set in and bodies were replaced with John Deeres or other equipment. Lincoln was a profound racist too , and many of his speeches prior to 1861 bear that out.

    The south needn’t have “won” at all. They should have been left alone. Borders would be no different than they are today. The Mason Dixon line would have remained the same. The south has many natural harbors, more pleasant weather to accommodate agriculture and its products. And the discovery in those southern states, especially Texas, would have sealed their independence and continued prosperity.
    The North would have starved during the winters without Southern grown food.


  18. Imp says:

    Sorry *…And the discovery …of oil.


  19. Imp: Ft. Sumter.
    And the North did not starve during the Civil War.
    They did not subside on peanuts and cotton.
    So I doubt they would have starved otherwise.


  20. John M. Berger says:

    It seems to me that when you switched to WORDPRESS it was kind of like succeeding from the liberal morons who pollute other blog sites. I don’t know, exactly, how that works but wouldn’t it be nice if this country could be bifurcated with the same facileness. Alas, it would seem nearly impossible for a multitude of reasons. Here are but a few:

    1) While [contiguous] states* in the south could make a clean break, how would the country be divided, geographically, based upon differences in philosophy which exist in every part of the country. What would the map look like? What military will facilitate this?

    2) With respect to (1) above, if say the country were to be geographically divided, somehow, that would mean massive migration(s) along with logistical problems, property ownership disputes and a host of other nightmares. What military will assure a smooth transition?

    3) How would the Social Security mess and other federal programs that tax payers have invested [sic] in be administered? What authority will be responsible?

    4) For the sake of argument let’s say there are two distinct sides involved here; the Liberals and the Conservatives. OK, now which side would likely initiate “succession”? Well, that would be the Conservatives, of course. Does anyone in his or her right mind think that the Liberals would stand for that? While PARASITES (Liberals) will devour the HOST (Conservatives) to the point of near death, they seldom [kill] the host providing their sustenance. What organization will provide extermination services for this problem?

    Well, this list could be much, much, longer but these four things jump-out at me right off the bat.

    *states were more autonomous back then


  21. And Vrag, you truly believe a sitting President of the USA would support secession? And that’s even legal? I’d love to talk the legalities…

    History proves that those are two entirely different issues… President James Buchanan didn’t “support” secession… but he also didn’t believe that there was anything that he could do to “prevent it”, either….

    In the 1800s, newly elected presidents were not sworn into office until March 4 of the following year. And that meant Buchanan had to spend four months presiding over a nation which was splitting apart.

    The state of South Carolina, which had been asserting its right to secede from the Union for decades, from the time of the Nullification Crisis, was a hotbed of secessionist sentiment. One of its senators, James Chesnut, resigned from the U.S. Senate on November 10, 1860, only four days after Lincoln’s election.

    His state’s other senator resigned the next day.

    Buchanan’s Message to Congress Did Nothing to Hold the Union Together

    As talk in the South about secession was quite serious, it was expected that the president would do something to reduce tensions. In that era presidents did not visit Capitol Hill to deliver a State of the Union Address in January, but instead provided the report required by the Constitution in written form in early December.

    President Buchanan wrote a message to Congress which was delivered on December 3, 1860. In his message, Buchanan said that he believed secession was illegal.

    Yet Buchanan also said he did not believe the federal government had any right to prevent states from seceding.

    So Buchanan’s message pleased nobody. Southerners were offended by Buchanan’s belief that secession was illegal. And Northerners were perplexed by the president’s belief that the federal government couldn’t act to prevent states from seceding.


  22. bocopro says:

    JMB — I simply do not see the United States as a single entity surviving into the next century in its existing configuration. Wrote at least 2 novelettes about 40 years ago predicting the breakup and several articles after the dissolution of Yugoslavia back in the early 90s.

    Pressure for downsizing government and decentralization would be corollaries to “irreconcilable differences” fueled by multiculturalism and centralization of wealth in right- and left-coast megalopolises. The Mississippi would be a natural border, as might be the Ohio, Missouri, and other rivers.

    Capital flight will be another contributor, as will be the chasm between religious fanaticism and growing apathy towards Christianity in major urban centers.

    The joker in that stacked deck is common threat. If we are deliberately attacked, either economically, technologically, or militarily, we likely will rally and fend it off just as we have in the past. Absent that, however, I can’t see a glue to hold it all together as fundamental American traditions are abandoned, long-standing principles are rejected as outdated, and half the work force watching their taxes steadily rise to support the other dependent, indolent, ignorant half.

    Democratic republics tend to fail once their citizens realize they can vote themselves money and benefits. We need look no further than Greece, Spain, and Europe in general to see that. A country needs secure borders (which we don’t have), a common language (which we no longer have), a common religion (which we no longer have), and a will to survive (which seems to have been replaced by “Me! Me! What’s in it for MEEEE!!!”)

    Santayana was right.


  23. geeez2014 says:

    ALL of this is FABULOUS information (except Bob’s telling me my state should be kicked out!! :-))
    I’m going to ignore that because I don’t need people getting the big thrill they always seem to by piling it on… ’nuff said.

    Having read most of your comments: THERE IS NO WAAAY A STATE COULD OR WOULD SECEDE. Not possible. John asks the best questions…ya, imagine New Hampshire and Texas, for example? What, they become separate COUNTRIES…not even united because of geography? The country of NEWER HAMPSHIRE and the country of TEXAS ACTUALLY DID THIS?

    REALLY? It would NEVER EVER work.
    We can talk history….we can talk Lincoln, slaves, etc., we can conjecture that states somehow would have come back on their own, or slaves would have been freed anyway (which I think probably would have happened), but those were very different times.

    This is a GREAT conversation but I’m going to tick you ALL off by adding “Man, I thought I was an idealist!” 🙂 HA!!


  24. Imp says:

    @ED…LOL…so you think that’s all they ate?


  25. Imp says:

    @Z..”What, they become separate COUNTRIES…”

    You do realize that some states were commonwealths and independent before the Union right? And that many of the states were once territories like Montana, Wyoming, Arizona and the Dakotas. right? There were 4 or 5 states that were once independent nation states / “countries” before they became states too.
    I believe that California was one of them Texas….and guess the rest.


  26. John M. Berger says:


    “Democratic republics tend to fail once their citizens realize they can vote themselves money and benefits.”

    YES! So once again I submit this:


  27. geeez2014 says:

    Imp….I ‘realize”? Everybody knows that….I’m not sure that has any bearing about today….I don’t think it’d be easy for a state to secede just because it was once a territory, you know?

    Most of you have suggested “draw a line and everything above it is…THIS…and everything below it is THIS”…that can’t happen….some states above or below the line wouldn’t want to be where they were…and, as I said above, picture if New Hampshire and Texas want to secede…are they separate countries or the country of NEW TEXAS??

    Just can’t work.

    Boco..and JMB….a very old adage and one we Republicans know all too well and one that Liberals will NEVER EVER understand.
    Meanwhile, the Clooneys are hosting a dinner tonight (I think it is?) for Hillary…the reports say $33,000 a seat….more recent reports say “in the six figures” for a seat…..Ah, the humble liberal democrat who cares about the people………. 🙂


  28. bocopro says:

    Hillary is about as “humble” as a python is “cuddly.” She’s a congenital manipulator, an artful opportunist, a professional hypocrite, and a frumious gringewort.


  29. Kid says:

    I’m late to the party but my thoughts at this late stage are:

    Who is that person with the lampshade on their head and why are those people naked.
    Anyway, The white house has to approve a seccession request, not sure if that was mentioned in the wonderful facts from Mustang and Imp.

    Z, I agree secession would be a massively complex thing to do even if we were to convince the libtards to kick Us out..

    I think what might work swimingly would be to have one more contiguous democrat president, wouldn’t matter sanders or clinton because both are communist slugs or mobsters, and end up with a supreme court heavily laced with the moron communist puppets such as sotomayor and kagen. This entity would stuff the constitution through the shredder poste haste, starting with the bill of rights.

    This is a clear actionable trigger to highly motivate the military command to perform a coup upon the united states of communism and in that event, all of this leftist nonsense could be rossed in the trash, the entire America refresed and sanitized. (Think that is why clinton and now obama have been purging solid military command Oath Taker people??)

    The first orders of business would be to take all ambiguity out of the constitution starting with amendment Numba 2.
    Then add some items of current societal import, Then remove the lifetime status of supreme court justices.

    Then make all leftist talking points illegal and treasonous.

    Remove all federal funding to the media. They, like any capitalist business must pass the muster of the population that watches them, which generates their revenue. Many of the vitrolic lefy entities would be broadcasting from their basements.

    Then go about undoing the communist active measures that plague us today. Make social security a lockbox again, get rid of WIC, then welfare over a longer period of time, eliminate a great number of money sucking useless federal departments starting with the dept of ed and then going through the alphabet of federal useless departments (Google federal departments and then convince yourself the budget cannot be cut). Say goodbye to the U.N, they need us – we don’t need them. Create another international cooperative entity and have clear responsibilities for all members that would keep them reasonable. For example – socialist countries need not apply. Figure out how to defend yourselves with your self-destructive economic systems. (time to grow up)

    I have lots more ideas but these are the main points.

    Thank you for listening.


  30. Kid says:

    PS – such comments above… I thank you all. It’s a pleasure to know you.


  31. Kid says:

    PPS, Z, California could be split into at least two different entities. You’re safe.


  32. Kid says:

    @Bob, If congressmen had to vote they way the majority voted in their district (the poeple that they represent) rather than this winner take all nonsense, I don’t believe a democrat would ever occupy the white house again.


  33. Kid says:

    @JMB. We need a clear border. Since libtards apparently like to freeze in winter, I would suggest drawing a line horizontal from East to West and that be the border. Folks above who don’t want to live in the libtard states of America will have to find their way south. When they cross the border, they must sign a pledge – sealed with their DNA that they will never apply for personal funding unless confirmed by two doctors that they are3 in fact disabled. if they are not disabled, then they will be digging ditches if necessary to feed them selves.

    Once again, we must convince the libtards (who are unbelievably stupee these days that this would be in their best interest)

    As far as funding – I don’t see any problem with floating bonds around the world to fund a conservative states of America. Even idiots know who’s got the money.

    As far as the new leftie country – Don’t call us, we’ll call you (not)

    And we will redo or firm up everything like the Constitution, requirements for federal or state personal funding, immigration, etc. If you want to live in our country, you will not be allowed until you can speak English and integrate into Our society. Obviosly, all moslems would be disallowed because islam has nothing in common with a free society. We will have no mosques.


  34. Kid says:

    Ok, now I’ve got these tingly sensations running up and down my legs………


  35. geeez2014 says:

    Kid, great information but when you say “This is a clear actionable trigger to highly motivate the military command to perform a coup upon ….” it makes me curious because I’ve heard SO many bloggers here comment that the military would acquiesce to the libtards in the White House…why, i have never been able to figure out, but that’s the word on the street from the Conservatives I KNOW, sadly.
    I personally don’t think so. But I hear that a lot.

    “Conservative States of America”…so wait, you mean the whole country would be pushed that way because of the utter insanity another leftwing admin would cause, or you mean the half of the country that broke off that’s more Conservative?

    Great comments!!!!


  36. Kid says:

    Z, The military has constitutional approval to overthrow a government that abuses the constitution beyond a certain point. Yea, would they? Who knows.

    In the case of a coup, then yes, America would be Forced to be conservative by law. Being a libtard would be illegal. Believe me this is what the libtards have planned for us. They’ve even guestimated that they will have to kill off at least 25 million people to get it done. I don’t suggest killing libtards, I recommend deportation to the socialist nightmare of their choice.

    They’re talking about Prison time for ‘climate change deniers’. Yea.


  37. geeez2014 says:

    Kid, who’s talking about prison for climate change deniers?

    Well, until and unless we start TAKING HOLD and getting conservatives making TV shows, movies, correcting the record, demanding the truth and threatening if it’s not given, holding the feet of the media to the fire, it’s our fault we’re losing, isn’t it.

    There’s a picture ALL over Yahoo of two men kissing at their wedding..ALL over. Fine, I’m happy for them, but I looked at that picture today and thought of the metaphor that is….not about gay marriage but about how the leftwingers hold our culture in their sick little hands and can print all they can to normalize people like liars like Hillary (hiding the truth about the Clintons), socialists like Bernie….never truly questioning effectively climate change pushers, the truth of Black America and who’s killing who? etc etc etc etc we could all make a huge looooong list of things our media’s twisting and controlling…

    and all we do is complain. WHY?


  38. Kid says:

    Prison time… So far only the talking heads like Bill Nye. I don’t see it far off that government would take this up if we continue on the leftie government path. George Orwell predicted it and he’s been batting 1000. Next up, Thought Police. And it won’t just be crap like climate change. it will be Every Thing.

    I don’t care about homo’s. I do care about activist homos shoving it in my face every chance they get.

    Yes, what can you or I or any other citizen do ? Little more than complain and try to influence. We need a very vocal opposition party and the repubblekins have proven they are not it.


  39. geeez2014 says:

    kid, i agree…I couldn’t care less what gays do….just read that some Olympian just married his boyfriend…BIG HEADLINES AT THE TOP of some home pages…VERy important we all celebrate that ; THAT’s what gets me, the shoving it in the face of our kids. It’s kids I care about. This is the NEW NORM.

    I TOTALLY agree, as I said above in my last comment, we need truth, we need a country where morality and goodness do count…we need vocal opposition to the smut we’re getting now…..political, cultural, moral, everything, right?!!..


  40. Kid says:

    Z, There it is. By getting kids to accept anything, they will accept everything. Game Over.


  41. jerrydablade says:

    I have to play ‘catch up’ on weekends when the work week is so busy. Looks like a busy blog week, Z! Great topic again and mostly thoughtful comments. Of course we don’t need to secede, we just need to get back to the constitution. We also need to get power back to the States and away from central govt. Certainly a Convention of States is more palatable than civil war.


  42. geeez2014 says:

    Jerry ; EXELLENT input and you’re never late !!! It’s always great to have you here….
    it is a great topic, isn’t it, started by some of my commenters on the blog below, something which I found merited a full blown post and it was well worth it.
    Back to the Constitution……indeed. God, help us.


  43. Pingback: My Article Read (4-16-2016) – My Daily Musing

  44. Mal says:

    Very true, Jerry, but it has to start by educating the uneducated because they vote. It starts there.


  45. geeez2014 says:

    Mal, I just heard that my supposedly erstwhile conservative niece will “probably vote for Hillary” ((her mom told me) because she finds Trump “immoral”…Heck, he’s married 3 times but on the list of REALLY nasty character issues he’s got IMMORAL would have been number 239847234987 for me!
    I hope she grows up and realizes what she’s doing before she votes for the b*tch.!!!
    Sadly, she’s not the type of young woman I can talk to…defensive right away. “Auntie Z is too into politics and too set in her ways in politics”.
    Ya, tough, little girl…….(and PLEASE don’t vote for HILLARY!)


  46. Kid says:

    DeBlade, for my part, I’m not suggesting a civil war. I am proposing a peaceful divorce based on irreconcilable differences. And frankly, if another democrat gets to appoint supreme court political leftie puppets, I can’t imagine how we’d get back to the constitution in many centuries if ever. Agree with Z, it starts with education. I can’t imagine how we’d turn that around either.


  47. Mal says:

    Z, you still can’t fix stupid!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s