Last Updated:November 22 @ 04:51 pm

Williams: Parting Company

By Walter E. Williams

For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since Barack Obama's re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. 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. Let's look at the secession issue.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: "A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln's inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, "No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here's my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

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."

The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. 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."

There's more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, "It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense." 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."

---

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.6/10 (309 votes cast)
Williams: Parting Company, 9.6 out of 10 based on 309 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

61 Comments

  1. NY GrahamComment by NY Graham
    November 28, 2012 @ 11:47 am

    America has seen two wars of independence, one successful and one not. They were both started by the premise that a distant government had become unresponsive to petitions and grievances, especially regarding land, property, taxation and trade, and that a free people had the Right to throw off such tyranny.

    We all accept that the Federal Government has become an unstoppable Leviathon. I believe that with the reelection of Obama it is now certain that this country is headed for a fiscal crisis of government default or dollar collapse. But, if any State chooses to lead the break from the Union, would we follow? Are we too held back by our patriotism? Or is it the entitlements we’ve been promised that keep us bound to the United States?

    Look to the States that have quietly introduced their own currencies backed by gold. They are also the states that are not drowning in debt and requiring Federal handouts to survive. When the dollar collapse comes, they will be well positioned to survive with a smooth transition to a different currency. At that point secession will be the only course as the rest of the US collapses around them.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (115 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      November 28, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

      Nobody thought it could happen to the Soviet Union, yet the destructive Socialist polices destroyed and bankrupted that union of States as assuredly as they will destroy America if left unchecked. As Lincoln stated, ” A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.”
      Likewise, This America will become either all Socialist or All Capitalist,,,Either the rights to private property or the rule of communal property will prevail. The two cannot exist in one manic-depressive economy that will ultimately lead to an economic panic depression of magnitude. Either economic Tax slavery will prevail in all the states or will finally be defeated in all the states. Either individual freedom and the right to personal property will prevail, or the rights of the collective to oppress the right to personal property will prevail. IT cannot go on like this much longer or all will perish in the conflict. This economically divided house is on a one way path to its own self destruction in debt.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (127 votes cast)
    • HisStoryUnComment by HisStoryUn
      November 28, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

      Just to be clear @inluminatuo, when Lincoln said “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, he was quoting scripture. Jesus said it first in Luke 11:17 Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. NIV

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (66 votes cast)
    • BobinmsComment by Bobinms
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

      I fear that Obama will intentionally drive this country into an economic collapse and use that as justification for declaring martial law and assuming dictatorial power. I don’t fear us becoming a socialist country patterned after Europe. I fear us becoming a socialist country patterned after Cuba and Venezuela. And we can’t rely upon freedom loving citizens because they are completely ignorant. Can you imagine such a mess in such a short time?? I hope I am wrong.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (75 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      November 28, 2012 @ 5:59 pm

      “Look to the States that have quietly introduced their own currencies backed by gold. They are also the states that are not drowning in debt and requiring Federal handouts to survive.”

      NY Graham, name ONE state that has introduced its own currency.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (10 votes cast)
    • lynncar47Comment by lynncar47
      November 28, 2012 @ 6:23 pm

      How about the states that have held out and refuse to accept this abomination called OBAMACARE? If enough states opt out of the single payer concept, perhaps we can collapse this house of straw. I am 72 years old, and for years have had an uneasy feeling that we are headed for another insurrection very similar to 1861. The fact that we have 47% of our population totally dependent upon the federal government is troublesome. We are still Americans and we will not lie down like slaves and accept what the federal government tells us. We then had a majority on the side of the King during our Revolutionary War, but fortunately, we had enough men and women with enough confiction and guts to defeat a superior army. We did it by guerrilla warfare. We wore them down to the point where it was no longer profitable to keep us under the King’s yoke. How will we accomplish the same thing today? I don’t know, but it will require a lot of bloodshed I’m thinking. I’m a retired Marine and I shudder to think of the future for my grand and great grand children. If we merely stand by and let the government rule over us, our grandchildren and great grandchildren will never know the freedoms and liberties that this great nation has enjoyed or many generations. They will never know the lives and the blood that millions of our military have sacrificed so that we could live free the yoke of oppresive government about our necks. We are about to lose all of that under this president. As Americans, are we willing to give this unproven man full control of our future?
      knew. After this last fiasco known as an “election,” I think that too many people simply don’t care about freedom and liberty; All they think about is security and getting free stuff.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (53 votes cast)
    • kanthonybComment by kanthonyb
      November 28, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

      Bna42 – CNNMoney, 2/3/2012
      “Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, lawmakers from 13 states, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina and Georgia, are seeking approval from their state governments to either issue their own alternative currency or explore it as an option. Just three years ago, only three states had similar proposals in place.”

      Constitution allows States to make coin backed by silver and gold…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (25 votes cast)
    • rthomComment by rthom
      November 28, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

      Jefferson Davis to his doctor while imprisoned at Fortress Monroe: “My people attempted what your people denounced as a revolution. My people failed; but your people have suffered a revolution which must prove disastrous to their liberties unless promptly remedied by legal decision. State sovereignty, the cornerstone of the Constitution, has become a name. There is no longer power or will in any State that would dare refuse compliance….”
      –Jefferson Davis: Tragic Hero. By Hudson Strode. Pg.247.

      The Constitution, via construction and apathy on the part of the American people, has nearly been reduced to a blank paper. Jefferson was correct when he said: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.”
      –Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803

      “The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield.”
      –Washington’s Farewell Address

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.9/5 (17 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      November 28, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

      “Worried that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar are on the brink of collapse, lawmakers from 13 states, including Minnesota, Tennessee, Iowa, South Carolina and Georgia, are seeking approval from their state governments to either issue their own alternative currency or explore it as an option. Just three years ago, only three states had similar proposals in place.”

      In response to my question about which states have produced their own currency, I am presented with an article from CNN which clearly says that lawmakers from 13 states ARE SEEKING APPROVAL from their state governments to consider an alternative currency as an OPTION.

      I will repeat my question: “Name ONE state which has issued its own currency”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.2/5 (17 votes cast)
    • pennie79Comment by pennie79
      November 28, 2012 @ 10:27 pm

      To bna42- “Name one State preparing for it’s own currency?
      Texas. We quietly took possession of all Texas gold bars about 2 years ago. We converted the certificates into gold bars and brought it back to the State of Texas. We also can use oil to back our currency. Texas has plenty of commodities to back a currency. Incidentally, we have had trade agreements with other countries for quite sometime, Perry has not gone to those many countries for just the fun of it or to bow down to them(like someone else we know). We are prepared with a plan when the dollar collapses.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (29 votes cast)
    • jmpeakrunnerComment by jmpeakrunner
      November 28, 2012 @ 10:45 pm

      To bobinms — Many people had the same concern even before the inauguration in 2009. Nothing in the meantime has lessened the concern; instead, the situation is far more worrisome now.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.3/5 (9 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      November 28, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

      pennie79,

      Once again I am amazed at the lack of reading comprehension. I didn’t ask which states were “preparing” or “considering” their own currency. I asked NY Graham who made the comment about the states which had “issued their own currency” to name ONE state which HAS ISSUED ITS OWN CURRENCY.

      Any state can “prepare” or “consider” doing it, but the full weight of the federal government will land on them because ONLY Congress has the authority to coin money and states are expressly prohibited from coining money of any kind.

      You also stated that “we” in Texas had quietly taken control of all gold bars, and I seriously doubt that because I am from Texas and have tons of relatives and family still living there. I keep in close contact with them, and none of them have ever heard of this “confiscation” of gold in Texas.

      The article that was published by CNN which was used on this forum even says that the Constitution prohibits states from issuing currency, but one paragraph was pulled from that article to try to prove that there were states printing their own currency.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.6/5 (14 votes cast)
    • NY GrahamComment by NY Graham
      November 29, 2012 @ 9:30 am

      BNA42, you are correct that no state has yet introduced its own currency, although several have passed bills making gold and silver coins legal tender. I was a little careless in my language, and I apologize.

      The point of my original post (poorly made, in hindsight) was that although States have the right to secede, they should not engage in a bloody secession. They should simply insulate themselves against the now inevitable dollar collapse. One way to do this would be to create alternative currencies. Gold and silver coins are all well and good, but in this age we need electronic currency backed by gold. A state could create its own gold back currency in electronic form. The CNN article quoted explains this. It would also be Constitutional. I’m not sure whether several states could come together to form one alternate currency backed by gold, but that would be ideal.

      Once a state has a viable alternate currency, it will be prepared for the dollar collapse. In the meantime, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and send the increasingly worthless dollars back to Washington.

      States that have natural resources like Texas and North Dakota could easily survive without the Federal government. They could trade with other states, or perhaps form a free trade zone to allow easy interstate commerce.

      Ask yourself this. Do you believe the US dollar will continue to be king when we have $16 trillion in debt, trillions more added every year, and countless more being printed as we speak? Or do you believe, as I do, that the US dollar is doomed? If so, how can we protect ourselves against the collapse? How can States protect their citizens?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (11 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      November 29, 2012 @ 10:15 am

      “Or do you believe, as I do, that the US dollar is doomed?”

      NY Graham,

      Of course I believe that the dollar is collapsing and would have already collapsed if it had not been the reserve currency used by the world. China has suggested changing the reserve currency from the dollar, and if that happens you can wallpaper your bathroom with paper dollars.

      However, states attempting to create their own currency are going to exacerbate the problem. Since the federal government will file lawsuits against any state that tries to protect itself from an invasion of illegal aliens, don’t you also think they will file lawsuits against any state which violates the U.S. Constitution by coining their own currency? The feds will not surrender the power they have illegally seized, so I doubt they would relinquish power which has been expressly allowed by the Constitution.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  2. gimmesometruthComment by gimmesometruth
    November 28, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

    After reading this article and the following comments, I can’t help but recall the song by Neil Sedaka “Breaking Up Is Hard To Do”. We seem to be riding on a runaway train with no one at the controls, or if you will, a Perfect Storm of Economic Collapse. Pray Hard – Pray Often!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (60 votes cast)
  3. begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
    November 28, 2012 @ 2:35 pm

    Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence lays out the principle and the right in certain terms : “–that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government —”.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (71 votes cast)
    • powertothepeopleComment by powertothepeople
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

      I dare say the federal power brokers will not take something of this sort laying down! The fed is a monster that needs feeding and we are the feed!

      Government that grows to a point that it must grab for what it wants to survive and grow is a threat to all the subjects it governs. We have passed the point of control. The federal monster is now like a splitting cell that exponentially expands. Self defense and self preservation are it’s top priority now.

      Wake up America….the government is not your friend!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (77 votes cast)
    • begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

      Exactly right Powertothepeople. We were warned by George Orwell, Ayn Rand, and as George Washington put it : “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence __it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
      Washington said the same thing you said, but his sho was purty.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (32 votes cast)
    • curmudgeousComment by curmudgeous
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

      @powertothepeople … Soylent Green

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.2/5 (13 votes cast)
  4. DudleyComment by Dudley
    November 28, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

    Once again the states will be disallowed to resolve by secession. The productive “red” states must be kept at bay in order to support the non-productive “blue” states. Without the support of the makers, the takers can’t take.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (82 votes cast)
  5. 8ntwegr8Comment by 8ntwegr8
    November 28, 2012 @ 2:48 pm

    If we stay in this Union, we’ll be called losers. Let’s withdraw from it and form our own nation, where no one pays taxes and everyone’s armed to the teeth. We can name it Western Somalia.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.7/5 (41 votes cast)
    • trishzComment by trishz
      November 28, 2012 @ 4:08 pm

      Actually we should name it United States of America. The left hates this country so let them come up with a new name.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (44 votes cast)
  6. goyoelburroComment by goyoelburro
    November 28, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

    OK, please feel free to secede! If you can’t handle the fact that the majority of Americans support the President and our country, and you want to form your own, please go ahead! You will make our lives so much simpler. I have to say though, good luck negotiating your own foreign trade agreements (the US will now be a foreign country to you). Also realize we will build border fences around your “country” and we will treat illegal immigrants like you want them to be treated now. If you keep US fissionable material, be aware that we may invade your state for developing weapons of mass destruction. If you have a disaster I wish you good luck (ask conservatives in NJ what they would do without FEMA assistance). What really makes me laugh hysterically is that conservatives constantly berated for people being “un-American” or “traitors” or “they hate America” or “Don’t question the president during an armed conflict”. Now you have the other party in office it seems that your patriotism suddenly disappears.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.4/5 (86 votes cast)
    • LenaComment by Lena
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

      You seem to be more of a jackass than a guardian of the burros.

      Actually, the citizens of NJ have waited a very long time for FEMA assistance. All their early help came from sources other than the Federales. And many are still waiting for help from FEMA.

      Remember, a government big enough to give you all you want, is also big enough to take all you have, even the donkeys.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (92 votes cast)
    • rosecoatsComment by rosecoats
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:17 pm

      Your response is hilarious……since when does the US build fences to keep out immigrants, we encourage them to enter, regularly grant them amnesty and the Democrats actually drive them to the polls to to VOTE with no proof of citizenship!
      And many people in New England are STILL without power, few have anything good to say about FEMA. The system of locals pulling together to help each other is always vastly superior to government “aid”.
      The woman that Obama hugged in a hurricane Sandy disaster photo op now says, she was used for the election and has not received any aid from the government whatsoever!
      Patriotism is not blind. We will not support a bald-faced liar who is systematically destroying our liberties, bankrupting our nation and establishing a socialist state. Supporting this is NOT patriotic in the least. Of course those who support the Democrat party of Barack “just a reaction to a Youtube” Obama, Bill “I never slept with her” Clinton and Harry “Romney paid no taxes for 10 years” Reid don’t care about honesty. They are just as corrupt as their amoral leaders.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (90 votes cast)
    • 18echoComment by 18echo
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:19 pm

      ” You will make our lives so much simpler.”

      Indeed. To paraphrase Bill Whittle, you will be sitting around in straw thatched huts picking the parasite’s off each other and eating organic algae cakes. We will be headed back to the moon since we will no longer be burdened by the moochers and looters. As for FEMA.. Really? Have you been paying attention to how FEMA failed NJ? It ALWAYS fails.. Every time. Your leftist answer is to do it again, but harder when the real answer is to disband it and tell the states that they are responsible for their own disasters.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (62 votes cast)
    • goyoelburroComment by goyoelburro
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

      @Lena and to the rest. Could you possibly respond to my comments without insults? It gives makes your arguments more coherent. Yes FEMA has been slow, but would you rather have slow aid or none at all. Many have temp housing through FEMA that would normally be homeless. Take everything I have?? My taxes HAVE GONE DOWN under Obama, and I’m solid middle class. Currently the Federal govt is trying to raise taxes the $250k+ earners. The amount extra they would have to pay would be in the $2k to $3k Range. I think they can afford it, lol

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.3/5 (62 votes cast)
    • rosecoatsComment by rosecoats
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:25 pm

      Brace yourself, el jackasso. When the Bush tax cuts expire, you will be paying a lot more. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving leech.
      BTW, 62 million is NOT a majority out of a population of nearly 400 million.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (54 votes cast)
    • rosecoatsComment by rosecoats
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:27 pm

      Anybody who believes that only those making over $250,000 will be affected with higher taxes is (1) a parasite, and (2) oblivious to reality.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (59 votes cast)
    • mikeyparksComment by mikeyparks
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:31 pm

      Please don’t take this as an insult, but you’re delusional. Your half of the nation will be the moochers. But who will you mooch from? Our half is the makers. Without your dead weight, we will fly high. Let it happen! But you won’t be building the wall — we will. And we’ll guard it well.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (63 votes cast)
    • curmudgeousComment by curmudgeous
      November 28, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

      @goyoelburry … I challenge you to come back in three years and say you are still in support of this President.

      While you’re waiting, read this article, which quotes Pravda:
      http://joemiller.us/2012/11/russias-pravda-declares-communism-won-in-american-with-obama-us-suffering-has-only-begun/

      We’re ALL going down with YOUR Ship of Fools.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (36 votes cast)
    • midwesternwilliamComment by midwesternwilliam
      November 28, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

      @goyoelburro: There you go. That’s another thing that’s so typically liberal. So condescending. You just have this assumption that the old “blue” country would be the powerful, and desirable, place where everyone wanted to live??? We WOULD build the fence to keep your free-loading candy a$$es out of here. Since nearly all the military bases and nukes are in “red” states, what makes you think we wouldn’t have the great military invading YOUR states for making weapons of mass destruction. And BTW hopefully we wouldn’t have anything like FEMA!

      Oh, but you’d have government housing plus “free” food and healthcare and everything else for all your non-rich citizens. As long as you don’t have to look at the pathetic government dependents, or their slums, or stand in line with them it’ll be a wonderful quality of life-for a generation or maybe two.

      Oh well. I guess we can all have our opinions about what makes a great country. But facts are facts. Liberals do all they can to ignore those pesky things.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (39 votes cast)
    • goyoelburroComment by goyoelburro
      November 28, 2012 @ 5:08 pm

      This group seems inable to comment without insult. I know you will follow with comments of liberal “elitism”, etc… but you do yourself a disservice by choosing the low road. If you want to get emotional fine, but my parents always raised me to believe that if you have to resort to insults, you are probably wrong in your arugment…

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.4/5 (19 votes cast)
    • shepherdComment by shepherd
      November 28, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

      There really isn’t anything more tragic than a gloating lib. How deluded you are to think this nation will survive another year without all of us feeling the consequences of this years election. All of our lives are going to change. Every one is going to have to make a decision. Some of us are preparing for the inevitable collapse. And then there are people like you who didn’t read the fine print and wonder why your dear leader isn’t sending a FEMA truck to help you while he parties it up in his million dollar mansion.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (16 votes cast)
    • rthomComment by rthom
      November 28, 2012 @ 8:24 pm

      Perhaps your “taxes” have gone down but through thousands more pages of regulations, even more draconian land use policies, bans on oil and gas drilling, the push to end the use and production of coal, monitization of the debt, etc., etc., every item you buy, be it bread, milk, fuel or electricity cost orders of magnitude more than it did four short years ago.

      You keep thinking that Obama and his kind’s (your kind?) push to raise taxes and thereby redistribute wealth is a worthy goal and practice. Remember (or think about it for the first time) that any law which takes what belongs to one person (income is that person’s property) and gives it to another to whom it does not belong is a bad law.

      Those who want the money or whatever for nothing cannot take it from those who have it without committing a crime; so they let the politicians do it under the guise of due process. What Obama (and you?) are pursuing is not taxation anymore it is Legalized Plunder.

      Also remember ( or, again, think about it for the first time) that government and law are the result of the desire to protect Life, Liberty, and Property; Life, Liberty, and Property are not the result of government and law.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.8/5 (24 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      November 28, 2012 @ 8:28 pm

      “If you can’t handle the fact that the majority of Americans support the President and our country, and you want to form your own, please go ahead!”

      goyoelburro, You begin your post with insulting comments, then you become offended because others insult you. Since you actually think the U.S. would build a fence around a state and treat those people as illegals, you are deluusional. They won’t build a fence or deal with illegals now, so what makes you think they would change their mind?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (15 votes cast)
    • cbc0827Comment by cbc0827
      November 28, 2012 @ 9:50 pm

      Who says it will be the Democrats who will set the rules? Who says it’s a majority of Americans? Remember it’s your party who is lazy and expecting all the entitlements and handouts from the government. It’s your party who has forsaken God and Country. You might find that it’s the Conservatives who will be the country that has the respect and cooperation from foreign governments. It might be the conservatives who control the firepower and set the rules of the game according to the constitution. Still laughing hysterically there goyoelburro?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (14 votes cast)
  7. Grouchy OneComment by Grouchy One
    November 28, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

    Since the federal gov’t fights tooth and nail against states’ rights, which were supposed to have been an integral part of the US government, I am really surprised that there have not been secessions before this. I can see it happening. Too many people are sick and tired of crooked elections, taxes that increase, and the loss or denial of personal freedoms that the government shouldn’t have anything whatsoever to do with. Add to that the current economic chaos, forced healthcare, terrible schools, and no jobs available to 12 percent of the people and we have a recipe for political disaster.
    I don’t believe the “people” re-elected Obama any more than I believe there is a Santa Clause but I don’t believe that anyone can get us out of this mess.
    History is in the making and 500 years from now, “Uncle Sam” will be the Ghengis Kahn, the Constantine, the Julius Caesar of this era. Just because there won’t be one name that can be named the hero or villain doesn’t mean time won’t march on.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.7/5 (43 votes cast)
    • Cape ConservativeComment by Cape Conservative
      November 28, 2012 @ 9:48 pm

      I, too, have serious doubt as to the veracity of our recent elections. And after reading about Allen West’s defeat???, it is quite apparent that photo ID is NOT the answer since Florida requires it. The entire election staff in St. Lucie County should be charged with fraud, fired and spend a LONG time behind bars! I work at our local polls and I know the procedure to credit absentee ballots to the voters. This is nothing more than sheer negligence, whether intentional or not, and the voters of that county should insist on accountability of the election supervisor. It doesn’t matter if he/she is in the hospital or not…there was serious negligence with over 100% of the registered voters casting ballots and I believe the Attorney General of the state of Florida should begin a thorough investigation. If we can’t count on the results of our elections, then our country is for sure heading for the junk yard!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (12 votes cast)
  8. mshshistoryComment by mshshistory
    November 28, 2012 @ 3:42 pm

    So much to disagree with here…

    Madison’s views changed; he was staunchly anti-secession during the 1832 tariff crisis with South Carolina. The perfectly logical reason to propose constitutional amendments in the months before the Civil War prohibiting secession was not because it was legal to secede, but to end the argument and attempt to prevent it, since the South had been rattling that sabre for some time.

    Lincoln was correct to argue in his First Inaugural address that the ultimate end of secession is anarchy; every small polity that feels aggrieved will decide that it can take its ball and go home. The basic social contract of government in a Republic requires tacit agreement to abide by laws and elections. In 1861 no move had been made to restrict the liberties of southerners within their states to hold and manage their ‘property,’ nor was any proposed. The election was fairly held, and bitterly divisive, but Lincoln won, and southern attempts to create lists of grievances to mirror those of the Declaration of Independence strain credulity. Union soldiers fought to maintain a system of constitutional government and the preserve the viability of the country – and by 1864 most of them had come to understand, even if sometimes grudgingly, that they were also fighting to end chattel slavery and the ‘right’ of one man to own another.

    There is no right to peaceful secession. There is the God-given right to rebel under tyranny, but that is a right that involves taking up arms and resistance through force. I do not believe that Southerners in 1861, however distraught they were over the certain future restriction of slavery and its likely eventual demise, had justification for separation; neither did Lincoln, and neither, as it turned out, did the Northern public. I certainly do not believe that I now have any reason to rebel against the government of the United States because I (actually, my candidates) lost the last two elections. Mismanagement is not oppression. There is still a functioning political process, and the burden falls to us to make persuasive arguments – not to quit.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 2.3/5 (30 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      November 28, 2012 @ 4:28 pm

      “The perfectly logical reason to propose constitutional amendments in the months before the Civil War prohibiting secession was not because it was legal to secede”

      AMENDMENT X (1791)

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Which means you MUST show where it is prohibited

      The states did not get their rights from the Constitution, they were the ones who gave it power

      Liberals ALWAYS get this arse backwards

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (33 votes cast)
    • philwynkComment by philwynk
      November 28, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

      The basic social contract of government in a Republic requires tacit agreement to abide by laws and elections.

      Tacit agreement? False. The terms of the social contract are spelled out explicitly in the Constitution and laws of the republic. What the hell do you think the oath of office was for? You think that was just ceremony??? The oath was the agreement to abide by the terms of the Constitution; and the Constitution spells out what is required. It is the only plank in the Constitution that applies to all three branches of government, and to state governments as well as the federal government.

      There is no right to peaceful secession. There is the God-given right to rebel under tyranny, but that is a right that involves taking up arms and resistance through force.

      You actually think there is NO right to secede peacefully, but there IS a right to secede violently?

      That is so completely insane that I have to wonder whether you’ve missed your thorazine drip. I am being only slightly facetious. That’s just… nuts. If there is a right to violent secession, there is a right to peaceful secession.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (18 votes cast)
    • mshshistoryComment by mshshistory
      November 28, 2012 @ 8:14 pm

      Re: Jota

      First, I’ve never been called a liberal before. That’s rather interesting. :-)

      Second, the position you’re taking goes back to the question of who made the Constitution. Arguably – and the position I’d take, along with Lincoln – is that it was made by The People, not the States, and that only The People can unmake it. The Tenth Amendment ought not be taken as an assumption that absolutely anything not specified is allowed – among other things, John Marshall’s decision in the McCullough case made it pretty clear that there are logical limits to state power with respect to the Constitution and Federal institutions.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.7/5 (7 votes cast)
    • bna42Comment by bna42
      November 28, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

      “John Marshall’s decision in the McCullough case made it pretty clear that there are logical limits to state power with respect to the Constitution and Federal institutions.”

      John Marshall’s decision does not in any way alter the meaning of the Constitution which specifically gives 18 powers to the federal government and also says that the powers not given to the fed are reserved for the states and the people.

      I am not calling anyone liberal, but you do have your opinion completely backwards from the
      Constitution.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      November 28, 2012 @ 9:57 pm

      “The Tenth Amendment ought not be taken as an assumption that absolutely anything not specified is allowed” – mshshistory

      Look, I will make it simple for you

      Draw a circle, this is the rights of the people and states

      Now draw a circle for the Federal government WITHIN the first circle

      Did this circle equal the first circle?

      No

      All the interest of all the people and all the states are NOT contained within the Constitution

      The Constitution deals with trade between the states but does not touch upon trade within the states, for one of many interest

      So what ever rights the states have that are not now delegated, nor prohibited to the circle which makes the Federal government are still their’s

      And since the rights of the state’s are not specified by the Constitution it does not allow or deny them anything, absolutely. (absolutes, always and never)

      So we do not need to assume anything because the 10th Amendment does not give the state’s anything. What ever power they had before which was not given to the Federal government they still have

      And you do have a liberal mind-set, which is contradictory to the arguments which lead to this nations formation

      Even though Lincoln was a Republican, he was a self taught backwoods man, who came to conclusions not consistent with the arguments which caused the Union.

      The quest was to find the balance where the Federal government was big enough to have the states comply with a republican government without becoming a tyrant. Lincoln crossed that line

      Are we better today for it?

      One size fits all government was NEVER (absolutely) what the Founders had in mind, in fact, they did everything to insure it would not be, it was the evil they hated and feared

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (7 votes cast)
    • mshshistoryComment by mshshistory
      November 28, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

      With respect to McCullough, my point is this:

      Article 1 grants specific powers to the Congress, and also denies certain powers to the Congress and to the states.

      The 10th amendment reserves powers not granted to the Federal government and not specifically denied to the states to the states and the people.

      Taking that at strictly face value, Maryland would indeed have been within its rights to tax the Second Bank of the United States, since such power was not denied it by Article 1, and the Constitution was otherwise silent on the matter.

      Marshall’s argument was a logical one, based on the intent and purpose of a Constitution; to have a Federal government with specific powers (and in the same ruling he accepted the concept of ‘implied powers’ as well) but allow states to tax its institutions is illogical, because to do so renders Federal institutions unsustainable – and such could not have been the intent of the framers or the Constitution.

      The anti-secession argument made by Lincoln – and by Andrew Jackson before him (with Madison’s support) – is similarly logical. I could summarize, but that would be rather lengthy; Jackson’s reply to the South Carolina nullification ordinance, Lincoln’s First Inaugural, and his address to Congress in July 1861 all say essentially the same thing far better than I can.

      And, yes, I am arguing that secession IS rebellion: I accept the notion that free people retain a moral right to protect themselves against tyranny – the position held by Locke and by the American colonists…but that the ultimate extreme exercise of that right means entering into a potentially violent conflict.

      I reject the notion that – however irritating, disappointing, and intrusive the Federal government has become thus far – we live in a tyrannical state in which rebellion would be justified. We still have free elections, freedom of speech and the press, and perfectly legal and Constitutional means of seeking redress and of seeking to “institute new government.” Given that, I would find rebellion (which is what secession would be) utterly illegitimate.

      It seems odd to me that the party of Lincoln is having this discussion more than 150 years after he most forcefully and eloquently made the case against secession and fought with great political skill to maintain the Union.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      November 28, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

      “And, yes, I am arguing that secession IS rebellion” – mshshistor

      Which is an interesting point, how can one rebel against freedom unless it has first been denied.

      So in effect they are restoring the Republic, by a segment, and is their duty

      hahahaha, don’t you just hate logic

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
  9. mrparkerComment by mrparker
    November 28, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

    I wish there was a way to push for semi-autonomous zones in this bitterly divided country. Some place where the constitution is revered, instead of destroyed by executive fiat and legislative sleight of hand.
    I think I now know what it would have been to live with modern conveniences in the 1850′s. The issue now is personal economic freedom.

    Whose taxes went down under BO? I’m middle class too and the only time in 20 years in WI my taxes went down were 1 year ago when Gov. Walker’s reforms were in place. Not anything because of BO. ALL he talks about is increasing taxes and spending.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (21 votes cast)
    • Cape ConservativeComment by Cape Conservative
      November 28, 2012 @ 9:52 pm

      And I beg you and your fellow WI citizens to urge Governor Walker to take his STRONG MESSAGE to the campaign trail of 2016! We need someone who is unafraid to stand by the principles that made our country great!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (7 votes cast)
  10. drifterdanComment by drifterdan
    November 28, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

    If states seceded they would have a lot more money as their citizens would not have to send so much money to Washington. They could use it for the states needs.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (17 votes cast)
  11. Jota_Comment by Jota_
    November 28, 2012 @ 4:27 pm

    “The perfectly logical reason to propose constitutional amendments in the months before the Civil War prohibiting secession was not because it was legal to secede”

    AMENDMENT X (1791)

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Which means you MUST show where it is prohibited

    The states did not get their rights from the Constitution, they were the ones who gave it power

    Liberals ALWAYS get this arse backwards

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (15 votes cast)
  12. rlutowskiComment by rlutowski
    November 28, 2012 @ 4:53 pm

    Secession should be the last option. The country might yet be saved by realizing that socialist Democrats and centrist Republicans (RINOs) are both part of the problem. A logical solution is a third party — not a ‘fringe’ third party but a viable, conservative, mainstream party founded on the core principles of limited Constitutional government, fiscal responsibility, and personal freedom and integrity. A preliminary analysis indicates that such a party would attract close to 50% of the total voter base, posing a strong challenge to the 30% or so that comprise the core Democrat base, and marginalizing the RINOs to about 15% of all voters. The key is the leadership, which must be individuals who are credible, conservative and imbued with fighting spirit that can successfully overcome the Democrat voter fraud machine as well as the rabid attacks that will be unleashed against them and the new party by both of the existing parties and the lamestream press. Strong conservatives previously tested and tempered by political fire — such as Sara Palin, Herman Cain, Alan West, and Paul Ryan — come to mind (the more denigrated by the press, the more confident we can be they are the right choices!) If such individuals join forces and step up to the challenge of forming a third party, it can succeed. If not, the choices become revolution or secession (which may be tantamount to the same thing) or slavery under a despotic government.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.5/5 (22 votes cast)
    • Cape ConservativeComment by Cape Conservative
      November 28, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

      A great idea however third parties never do what we’d like them to…just ask any MA resident why the Republican lost the governor’s race…a former D turned Independent decided to run and took just enough votes to give the corner office to the president’s BFF! Of course, he will probably appoint himself to senator if JFK gets the call for Secy of State.

      What we really need is a NON-establishment CONSERVATIVE Republican candidate to run…the support is out here…we just have to get rid of the LOSERS who call themselves campaign managers!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (4 votes cast)
  13. Bob KnowsComment by Bob Knows
    November 28, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

    “there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone” True. Its the Ron Paul folks who want freedom, and its Republicans and Democrats who argue over who best to own and control the people. A huge number of people want freedom, not tyranny, not government control, not “support your local police” state tyranny. As Dr. Williams points out, the US Constitutional freedoms were ended by the Party of Lincoln and the war of 1861. Our ancestors had less than a century of freedom. If either Party, R or D, would support real freedom it would win big. But they all are about POWER and their is little difference between them.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.8/5 (20 votes cast)
  14. philwynkComment by philwynk
    November 28, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

    I’ve been saying this since the 1980s: there are two, competing moral systems at work in the US, one Modernist-Progressive, one Judeo-Christian. They are incompatible, and cannot be reconciled. The Constitution presupposes a single, operative moral system, and cannot function with two — particularly if one of parties fully intends to override the Constitution as soon as it gathers enough power.

    There are only three outcomes possible, short of an act of God removing one party or the other:

    - One group will dominate the other, tyrannically;
    - Civil war; or
    - The nation will split into two nations.

    I advocate the third; it is the most amicable solution.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (23 votes cast)
  15. dvdcavenderComment by dvdcavender
    November 28, 2012 @ 6:17 pm

    It has always been a mystery to me how some, so called, elitists can and do tell everyone how to live, what to eat, how to vote, etc. Where do they get the idea that they know best. Is it something they were told, taught or just came up on their own? The only people that calls them elitist is themselves. These are egotistical morons that have some money, so they have a say in how you (regular humans) live? Their poop smells just as bad as anybody elses. They bleed just like anybody else. What is so special? If you are a so called elitist, don’t respond. I’m not interested in your answer. DC

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
  16. penfireComment by penfire
    November 28, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

    State currencies: http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/pf/states_currencies/index.htm

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  17. Pingback: Parting Company | The Original Republican

  18. danwComment by danw
    November 28, 2012 @ 10:28 pm

    An idea was posted above that really caught my attention. It posed a viable third party for future elections and it spoke of running Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Paul Ryan along with unnamed others. I would suggest adding Marco Rubio and Allan West, just to name a few.
    I believe that if these people were interested, a sizeable third party can be built under their combined leadership. The movement back to sanity can begin with a web site questionaire to determine how many people would back such a national movement………….then we can take it to Washington and the State Houses. That would eliminate secession which, even if successful, would totally destroy our great country. it IS time for a third party BUT it has to be strong enough to withstand the media and voter fraud.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (6 votes cast)
  19. Pingback: Parting Company | Sago

  20. vevaComment by veva
    November 29, 2012 @ 11:20 am

    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.”

    Look again, Lincoln said “to the cause of self-determination — “. He did not say for self-determination. Both the North and the South fought to the cause of self-determination. But each was on an opposite side. Both South and North soldiers fought at Gettysburg, in support of what they believed. The North wanted a “Union”; the South wanted seccession to do otherwise – states rights that included slavery.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      November 29, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

      “The North wanted a ‘Union” – veva

      Why? Because it would look good on a resume?

      It was called Lincoln’s War and many in the North saw no reason to scarifies their sons to keep the South, good riddance

      Lincoln sent troops to attack Fredericksburg,
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fredericksburg
      three time and was three times repelled. People were even less in favor of it

      Then Lee made the biggest blunder of the war, after the death of Stonewall Jackson, he thought the best way to put an end to the attacks was to carry the fight to the North, take the capital and end it quickly, see how they liked it.

      It was a huge blunder because for the first time the North saw the South for what it could be, a threat to them

      Then war got draped in all the glowing rhetoric of preserving the Union, freeing the slaves

      So why did Lincoln attack to begin with?

      The entire western half of the US was for the most part unsettled territory and would be a source of future conflict if the matter was not settled, early and decisively. It was the belief there would be a 100 years of war

      Slavery was already going the way of the buffalo with labor saving devices like the cotton gin, so that less than 3 percent of the population was even a slave owner at the time of the war

      So the argument for the South truly was about self-determination and the North, with Lincoln speaking, did not want any to think they were being immoral by forcing another to their will, just like a slave owner does to a slave, so said they were really the ones being moral by liberating the slaves

      Of course, the victor writes history

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (2 votes cast)
  21. Pingback: If At First You Don’t Secede, Try, Try, Again! — 1389 Blog - Counterjihad!

  22. braines57Comment by braines57
    November 30, 2012 @ 1:43 pm

    Anyone who has paid any attention to events which have unfolded in the past four years, on top of the recent election, has already either started to stockpile certain items (gold, guns, bullets, etc.) or has put together some plan and/or preparation for a disaster. To quote an old and true adage: “hope for the best, prepare for the worst and get ready to hunker down until the storm passes.” Some prescient state governments, mindful of their responsibility to their residents, have begun similar plans, including enacting legislation which they may not as yet have acted upon but have put “on the books” in case it becomes necessary. As for “building fences around them” – my guess is that the opposite would hold true: the “red” states would be more interested in keeping people from the “blue” states out than the other way around. Food stamps aren’t worth much if there is no food at the grocery store to purchase. Go pull up old pictures from the Soviet Union of the people standing in line to purchase just a loaf of bread or a jug of milk and picture a similar situation in say Chicago or Detroit. If you think the government would step in and save the day I have one word for you: Katrina. Best of luck!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer