McBerry’s Refusal To Salute Current US Flag Causing Stir, And Rightfully So.

A national left-wing blog is having fun with Ray McBerry’s little gem of a statement released yesterday. TPMMuckraker has seized upon this comment by McBerry:

I choose to salute the Georgia flag and the original Betsy Ross American flag instead of the current federal flag which represents the present unconstitutional leviathan in Washington.

According to Muckraker:

An aide to a rival gubernatorial campaign told TPMmuckraker he had seen McBerry decline to salute the American flag at candidate debates and forums. “He literally steps back … a foot or so,” the aide explained.

Ray McBerry doesn’t deserve the paltry 2% support he’s currently receiving in the GOP Primary for Governor. Perhaps he could do us all a favor and withdraw from the race.

220 comments

  1. Tyler says:

    From Galloway:

    “But McBerry has now confessed – in his very own words – that he refuses to salute the U.S. flag with 50 stars. This is no rumor. The candidate says that some people think:

    “…that I am somehow unpatriotic because, as a Georgian who cherishes the constitutional Republic given to us by our Founding Fathers and wishes to see it restored, I choose to salute the Georgia flag and the original Betsy Ross American flag instead of the current federal flag which represents the present unconstitutional leviathan in Washington.”

    Whatever his reasons, this is a fellow who has shared the stage – at one time or another – with all six other Republican candidates for governor. And he says he doesn’t salute the American flag.”

    • macho says:

      Ray’s main problem, due to polling at less than 2%, is the only way to get media attention is keep ratcheting-up the stupidity.

    • Mozart says:

      Is there a difference between the act of “saluting the flag” and “pledging to the flag?”

      • Hi Mozart,

        When I’m around veterans, a lot of them literally salute the flag. Other than the difference between hand position, I don’t know if there is a difference or not.

  2. ChiefofStaff65 says:

    Buzz,

    Ray McBerry’s campaign is not worth the paper it is printed on.

    Much like the Confederate money he tries to fund raise to support his campaign.

    Please do not give him or his 6 followers any more front page media attention.

    Sincerely,

    Me.

  3. apacheangel says:

    It amazes me how much press is given to Ray McBerry by those who think he is just a “far-right crazy with no chance of winning.” If he is so inconsequential and has so little support, why bother writing about him? BTW, an all-volunteer staff of over 2000 is much more than 6, and is much greater than the support you claim he has. I am sorry, Buzz and the rest of you commenting on here, that you are so unwilling to admit that Mr. McBerry has great support — outside the establishment GOP. I look forward to your shock after the primaries.

    • macho says:

      I remember all to well when Ray and his minions had stated they were going to throw the election to Mark Taylor in the General.

    • Doug Deal says:

      He gets derided because he is a dangerous nutcase. At some point, I imagine people rolled their eyes at Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot or Cynthia McKenney. Failure to call these people out on their extremism early and often, allowed them to come to power.

      Reminding people how fringe this kook is prevents him from fooling enough people back into legitimacy.

        • apacheangel says:

          I have to say, that’s not really even funny. McBerry is a strict constitutionalist, and even if he was the nut you say he is, he certainly is not a mass murder, a tyrant (even in the making) or a racist. Can’t we be a little civil here?

          • Doug Deal says:

            Hitler wasn’t a mass murderer until his rise to power. Hopefully, McBerry never reaches that plateau.

            His leadership on the League of the Segregationists South qualifies him as a racist.

            Strict Constructionist, my behind. A strict constructionist does not pick and chose the parts of the Constitution to ignore and which ones to follow.

            • Red Phillips says:

              “His leadership on the League of the Segregationists South qualifies him as a racist.”

              The SPLC and Morris Dees must be so proud of their bright young pupil. When either unwilling or incapable of making an argument against someone to your right, just drop the r word. Works every time.

              Exactly what part of the Constitution are you alleging Ray ignores?

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    Doug, please point me to the part of the Constitution that says the SCOTUS is the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. I’ll save you the trouble, it ain’t in there, but it would probably do you some good to look for it. The Congress has the duty to determine constitutionality when they pass a law. (Fat chance these days.) The Pres has the duty to determine constitutionality when he signs or vetoes a law. (Again, fat chance these days.) And the States have a duty and right to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by the feds. Please point me to any suggestion from the Founders that the SCOTUS was the sole decider of constitutionality.

                    In fact, Article III says nothing about determining constitutionality at all. It is mainly a technical list of what cases come under federal and SC jurisdiction. Again, I don’t reject judicial review out of hand. The SCOTUS can determine the constitutionality of matters before it just as the Pres, Congress and States should. But the Constitution did not envision the current role of the SCOTUS as black robed oracles from on high who solely determine constitutionality. This isn’t even hinted at. To the degree it is, it is feared. I believe there is a Federalist Paper that addresses this subject directly, but off the top of my head I don’t know which one.

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      Your right Red, your secret knowledge handed down from chosen one to chosen one via the Knights Templar outlying the True(tm) intent of the founding fathers is superior to our petty reliance on insignificant trifles like 200+ years of tradition, common law practice, long standing case-law, the very text of the Constitution and general consensus.

                      How can it possibly be that with such a keen intellect that is above pretty much everyone in the universe you are stuck here as a nobody defending a racist kook living in 1859 and accused of having improper relationships with at least one child.

                      Why aren’t you a professor Emeritus teaching conlaw at Harvard? Tell that tiny 98% minority how wrong we are.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      Tradition, common law, and case law are certainly important. But as I said to grift, case law can kelp define the Constitution, but it can not redefine it. The Constitution does not mean something different now because a modern Judge said so than it did the moment it was ratified. (Barring the amendment process of course.)

                      Doug, this line of thinking is not new. There is no “secret knowledge.” But you act as if you have never heard of it and it appalls your pristine senses. Do you not get out much? Its called original intent. May I recommend the Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution by Kevin Gutzman as a starting point.

                      BTW, where do I ever deviate from the “very text of the Constitution?”

                    • benevolus says:

                      OK, I will jump in to say that presumably, if the “original intent” was unambiguous there would be no judicial review. I mean, does anyone question whether the Founders intended for Representatives to be elected every two years? No! It’s as clear as can be. The things that are decided in court are decided because they are not as “defined” as that.

      • Mozart says:

        I thought there was a debate rule that said when you mention “Hitler” (or related), you lose the debate?

      • Game Fan says:

        (It’s McKinney) And lots of patriots have some common ground with Cynthia McKinney. The ones who think with BOTH sides of their brain. Without getting rid of what THEY believe of course. (the ones not stuck in the political echo chamber or “following” the mainstream talk radio jockeys)

        • Game Fan says:

          Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and McBerry?

          Because McBerry supports centralized power?
          Because McBerry is a corporate fascist?
          Because he supports warrantless surveillance, retroactive immunity for the telecoms, signing statements, national security letters, FEMA, ect…
          Because his supporters (not necessarily followers) are gutless sheeple. Yeah, I can see the tie-in.

          • Game Fan says:

            Now in order to pass Game Fan’s litmus test for not being one of the gutless sheeple, or as some have called these Republican followers, “good little Germans”, one would have had to thoroughly criticize something about “Dubya” (from the Republican right, not from the left) back before his popularity sunk to record levels. Well, we’re waiting…

      • Red Phillips says:

        Wanting to follow the Constitution as originally intended by the Founders is “fringe,” “dangerous,” and “kooky.” It’s so sad you feel that way. But it also goes by another name. It’s called conservatism.

        Feel free to actually make the historical case that State’s Rights aren’t a legitimate option according to the republic the Founders left us.

        Since you seem to be struggling so hard with this, my offer still stands to let you borrow some of my books.

        • griftdrift says:

          Fine. I’ll give you some.

          Jefferson Davis’ fondest wish was for the issue of secession to be argued before the Supreme Court. Eventually it was. Texas v. White, where Chief Justice Chase wrote for the majority:

          “It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?”

          I have no doubt you will now find some weird rationale to ignore this particular bit of history.

          • Red Phillips says:

            grift, we have already been over Texas vs. White. It was decided in 1869. To find the intent of the Founders which is more germane, a court decision in 1869 or the proceedings of the actual Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions? I hope you don’t find going back closer to the source to be a “weird rational.” Some of us call it by a different name, research.

            BTW, the word “perpetual” in the AoC meant that it had no sundown date. It was indefinite. If you were familiar with the arguments in this debate you would know that. It clearly was not perpetual because we later changed it.

            Try again.

              • Red Phillips says:

                Court decisions can help define the Constitution but they can not redefine it. Chief Justice Chase was hardly a disinterested party in this debate.

                But when judges are weighing in on constitutionality trying to determine original intent is more important than precedent. Only lawyers think the newer is the more authentic. Does the historian look for the most recent sources and secondary and tertiary sources, or do they look for the oldest and primary sources?

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    Chase was a centralist partisan and not objective, but I wasn’t making the point about him. I was making the more general point that original intent trumps precedent.

                    • benevolus says:

                      Has the ruling ever been legally challenged? Successfully? That seems the proper path of redress.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      So because the AoC said “perpetual” which I have already explained and it manifestly wasn’t since it was changed by the Constitution and because the Constitution says “more perfect” then that means the Union was “indissoluble?” That grift, is what we would call a leap. If that is the best Chase had, he didn’t have much.

                      The simple fact remains, and this is the real trump card, three states EXPRESSLY RESERVED the right to secede in their ratification documents. What? Did they have their fingers crossed when they did that?

                    • griftdrift says:

                      You asked for a historical argument. I gave you one. You tried to say it was not based on primary documents. I pointed out it was. Now, even though you have yet to admit your error, you reply that it is a weak argument.

                      Classic goalpost shifting and a frequent tactic used by creationists. How old is the Earth, Red?

    • Philly says:

      Hey, dude, I want some of what you have been smoking.. McBerry is not even a has been, he is a never was..

      How many of you McBerry supporters blasted Obama for not slauting the flag, but are giving McBerry a pass? Careful, your racism might be showing…

      • apacheangel says:

        I am so insulted that you called me dude…

        I cannot answer for over 2000 people as to what their opinion of Obama not pledging/saluting was. I think there was just a LITTLE more to that situation though…you know, the whole the-constitution-is-an-outdated-document-and-I-won’t-be-bound-by-it, and associating with domestic terrorists thing…

        I was wondering when someone was going to cry “racism.” Congratulations, you get the liberal angst award. We are all so proud.

    • Republican Lady says:

      It takes approximately 150,000 votes to win the Primary. I don’t think 2000 votes for Ray McBerry will be enough for him to win.

      • apacheangel says:

        You know he will get more votes than just his volunteers, right? Before anyone calls me a liar, I know many people, who are not part of his campaign staff, who have told me they support him and will vote for him. I love the election assumptions. It makes everything so much more interesting.

        • GOPGeorgia says:

          The thing I like about McBerry is that the people who are looking for someone like that to vote for will have someone like that to vote for. I’m just looking for something kinda nice to say. I will watch the primary process work it’s magic.

              • GOPGeorgia says:

                I agree that Rep. Lewis did a great job for civil rights before he was elected to congress. He was even arrested in 2009 on his principals. I am unimpressed with legislative action by him, but I probably find something to like about almost anyone.

                • benevolus says:

                  Different people work different ways. I believe John Lewis IS influential to a lot of his colleagues. His influence may not be measurable in a visible or documentable way, but I have heard more than a few people- legislators and others- say he is among the most influential legislators for them.

  4. ChiefofStaff65 says:

    APacheAngel,

    I will happily look forward to some shock after the primaries and will happily make you a bet here and now.

    I’ve got a nice West Wing Pin from the Oval Office of President George W. Bush and a bottle of Johnny Walker Blue with your name one it if the self-proclaimed President of the State of Georgia polls over 15% (the amount needed to gain a spot in the run-off).

    Whaddda ya say Pal?

      • B Balz says:

        College kid that doesn’t drink fine Scotch. We’re doomed.

        Just kidding, Apacheangel. Stuff will stunt your
        growth, anyway.

        Glad you are engaged in the process, and I applaud your enthusiasm. Cannot agree with your positions on your candidate, but YOUR involvement in the process is critical.

        I think we can all agree that folks like Mr. McBerry are a value-add when it comes to page views.

        • apacheangel says:

          Thanks, B Balz. I only support candidates who I truly believe are going to work to restore liberty and remain within the confines of the law. I drink fine coffee…do I get points for that?

    • Jeff says:

      I’ve considered making my own offer to them, based on Steve Vasil’s constant “How many votes did you get?” ad hominem.

      May yet write it up on my site and see how many would bite on it. Gotta make sure I don’t run afoul of any laws first though. 😀

      • Jeff says:

        Yeah, OCGA 16-12-21(a)(2) is pretty clear:

        A person commits the offense of gambling when he makes a bet upon the result of any political nomination, appointment, or election or upon the degree of success of any nominee, appointee, or candidate

        It is a misdemeanor, so y’all can decide for yourselves if you want to risk it. Me, I’m shutting up on that particular topic now. 😉

  5. Jeff says:

    I know the Census is ongoing as we speak, per a cursory google search, the Census Bureau is claiming as of about 9 months ago we had a population of right at 10 million people in Ga.

    I hold that you can find 2000 people (0.02% of the population) across the State that would believe the earth is made of Swiss cheese – maybe even more.

  6. NorthGeorgiaGirl says:

    This only gets press because it is slightly entertaining. Everyone needs something a little different to talk about every once in a while.

  7. macho says:

    It’s interesting that you can move so far to the right, you start sounding and acting like a guy from the left. I think Malcom X had a bunch of reasons for not saluting the flag as well.

  8. Goldwater Conservative says:

    I am curious if Ray McBerry knows that the “founding fathers” (whomever they may be) used Manifest Destiny as a justification for westward expansion.

    McBerry is dillusional.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      On Manifest Destiny: “The term, which first appeared in print in 1839, was used in 1845 by a New York journalist, John L. O’Sullivan, to call for the annexation of Texas. It was primarily used by Democrats to support the expansion plans of the Polk Administration, but opposed by Whigs who wanted to deepen the economy rather than broaden its expanse. It fell out of favor by 1860” -Manifest Manhood and the Antebellum Desire

      So, no, it was not used by the Founding Father’s, any of the ones you could potentially point to. But it was used by the Democrats….

  9. Miss T says:

    Ugh. Why do we even talk about him? The next thing you know we’ll be reading a statement about how he thinks the South will rise again.

  10. KariDee says:

    Ok, I have one comment to make about McBerry…….YIKES.

    Other than that, I am new on here and you guys are really entertaining!!!!

    • analogkid says:

      Welcome to PP, KariDee.

      FYI, the only way to become a full member is to publicly declare your undying devotion to Karen Handel. Publicly disavowing McBerry is a good first step though.

      🙂

  11. Rick Day says:

    Meh. I don’t salute the US Flag either. Nor do I drone any pledges or oaths, nor take off my cap at the playing of the so-called “National Anthem”.

    As a veteran, taxpayer and natural born citizen, I don’t feel need to pledge anything to any special interest government that does not represent the common interest. My country, sweet Land of Liberty™ died when the metal detector went into public schools.

    Bully for him.

    • B Balz says:

      Thank you for your service to Country, Rick. I hate it that you feel that way, though it is your choice.

      And you are not a public official sworn into office.

      • ByteMe says:

        You can tell, because he doesn’t wear the $0.59 flag pin on his lapel to “prove” his patriotism.

        • B Balz says:

          It’s not so much the pin, or the pledge, but to me, saluting flag means a lot. When I hear a Vet say they choose not to salute, it hurts my heart. I cannot imagine how Mr. Day must feel to make that statement, as a Vet.

          Maybe I am overreaching, but that little symbol of saluting means a lot.

          • ByteMe says:

            You used the correct term, “symbol”. If you think about all the examples through history, you’ll see that the strongest “group think” examples are also the ones with the most symbolism to reinforce the “group think” (pick any nation or religion and you’ll see that the strongest ones have the most revered symbols).

            Not saying it’s right or wrong, just saying that it’s there and ripe for being used to manipulate people.

            • B Balz says:

              Interesting point, Byte.

              For me, I feel deeply that the symbol of a salute or placing one’ hand over their heart signifies a feeling of respect. I don’t see manipulation being used by anyone.

              We may have to agree to disagree on this one, mate.

    • Ramblinwreck says:

      I think it’s sad that someone who holds to the same ideals and principles that the founders of this country used when they created the Constitution is considered “fringe”.

      • ByteMe says:

        Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t actually hold the same ideals and principles that the rest of the population holds.

          • ByteMe says:

            You wanted to know why the vast majority of us — 98% at last poll — think he’s “fringe”. You can’t be part of the majority and be “fringe”. You want to be part of the fringe, feel free, but don’t wonder why the number of people joining your fringe is small.

            • Actually, I don’t recall any polls with a question asking if the respondent thought Ray McBerry was “fringe”. Just because people prefer a different candidate does not make other candidates fringe. According to your logic, every single candidate would be considered “fringe” by at least 50 percent of the respondents, as nobody is polling over the 50 percent mark.

              Now, that’s not to say I support McBerry. I certainly don’t. But to outright state that 98% of people think he’s fringe I believe is a bit of an overstatement.

              • ByteMe says:

                Yes, I think all the candidates are whack-jobs in one form or another. Perhaps not having party primaries would bring them all back to the center instead of pandering to try to win over the fringe that votes in party primaries.

                But I’ll grant that my previous post was an overstatement. Maybe even this one, too. 😉

      • benevolus says:

        It’s not really sad that we overrode them on slavery and women’s suffrage. It’s progress. They weren’t gods. They did the best they could under difficult circumstances.

        • Ramblinwreck says:

          Those things changed using the methods built in to the Constitution, the amendment process. The problems we have today are all the result of judicial activism that has given those in DC an excuse to do things the federal government was never supposed to be allowed to do. Lack of respect for the Constitution is what has caused all the problems we see today. How’s that working?

          • Jeff says:

            I would argue that the first Civil War caused all the problems we have today, which is why I am so adamantly opposed to Ray’s plans for a second one.

            Before that war, we were still decently close to what the Founders gave us. In its aftermath, we saw more and more Big Government. Started fairly slowly at first, then snowballed.

  12. c_murrayiii says:

    Saying the pledge is a bit over hyped. It’s really not that important, like Mr. Day, I am a vet, a natural citizen, and until I started law school, I was a taxpayer. The pledge was created in 1892, over a hundred years after the founding of the nation, so clearly it isn’t critical to displaying patriotism. The pledge was written by a Christian Socialist as well. What we should really be pledging allegiance to is not a flag, which is a piece of cloth, but rather the Constitution, which forms the core of our laws and represents the values of the nation.

    • macho says:

      When you a pledging to the flag, I don’t think it’s literal, more symbolic. I more interested in this quote by you: “until I started law school, I was a taxpayer.”

      • c_murrayiii says:

        Haha, well, I suppose I still pay state sales tax, but without income (I’m a full time student) I’m not in a position/required to pay income tax.

        • macho says:

          I thought you meant that you learned something in Law School on how to avoid Federal Taxes, I was about ready to sign up!

      • AubieTurtle says:

        “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands”…

        I’ve always wondered about that because it certainly sounds like the pledge is both to the flag itself and separately to the republic that the flag symbolizes.

        But just as the devil can quote the Bible like a scholar, I doubt anyone who really hates the United States would have a problem playing along saying the pledge while secretly planning harm for the nation. I’d much rather judge someone on their deeds and actions than by them repeating a non-binding pledge. In this case however, McBerry is enough of a wackadoodle that I can dislike him regardless of if he salutes the flag or recites the pledge.

        McBerry doesn’t matter except for the ability to swing a percentage or two of the vote. In a really tight race, that might mean something but it is way too early to know if things are going to be close or not during the primary or the general.

  13. c_murrayiii says:

    Oh, and to clarify once again, I think McBerry sounds like a kook. So I am not defending him specifically.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      I would like to strike the above comment, I shouldn’t be calling anyone a kook because I have a different political view than them. I find Mr. McBerry to be misguided, not a kook. I apologize to the PP for resorting to childish name calling.

      • analogkid says:

        No apology necessary. PP was founded to provide a forum for childish name-calling. Just ask Erick. Something about Supreme Court justices and goats…

      • Red Phillips says:

        “I apologize to the PP for resorting to childish name calling.”

        c_m, you must be new. Childish name calling is par for the course here. The mo of PP is for all the centrist to gather around and poke fun at people who actually take what they say they believe seriously.

        • c_murrayiii says:

          It may be par for the course, as it seems to be with every other news and political forum I have read, but I am making a decision to personally refrain from the practice as best as I can from now on, because I know it does little to develop a productive and insightful dialogue that can educate and enlighten people. It’s something that is sorely lacking across the board in our nation’s political discourse, and is very much needed. So, I’m gonna stop being part of the problem. I encourage you all to do so as well, but I realize I am probably naive and that this problem will not change.

  14. Count me as being in the “Why Is Anybody Writing About Ray McBerry?” camp. However, it does interest me to see all the strong feelings about the pledge of allegiance in this thread. Over the past year or so, the Peach Pundit regulars have been labeling pretty much EVERYTHING under the sun as “socialism”… yet ironically, the pledge actually WAS developed by a socialist toward those ends! Look up Francis Bellamy (or the “Bellamy Salute” in particular) for a few history nuggets they probably didn’t teach you back in school.

    Personally, I don’t see the big deal. I don’t turn my back on the flag or make a big show out of protesting anything, but I don’t salute or chant along with the pledge either. I just respectfully stand there for a moment, pretty much the same as when I’m around evangelicals who bow for a group prayer. I don’t understand why I would be offended by such things, and I don’t understand why me not joining in would offend anyone else. Folks just have too much spare time on their hands.

    • B Balz says:

      “There are no atheists in foxholes.”

      The ‘thin blue line’ between criminal anarchy and police protection is thinner than most people think. The worldview of a ‘thin blue line’ between a civilized World or the chaos of ruthless dictators is even thinner. That little symbol of respect, regardless of original means a lot to some.

      I have no problem with citizens those that choose not to salute or pledge to the flag. Actions have consequences.

      It is my choice not to ‘pull the lever’ for a candidate that won’t respect the flag.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      I pointed this out earlier….nobody want’s to discuss it I guess, doesn’t fit their agenda. I won’t base my vote on something so juvenile as saluting a piece of cloth. I care more about the person’s view of the Constitution, the only document that really matters with regards to the idea that is America. (And secession is not a power granted the states by the Constitution, but we could amend it I suppose) When I enlisted in the Army, I didn’t swear to uphold the flag, I swore to uphold the Constitution. I saluted the flag out of respect to the fallen and as a symbol of the people I served(You folks), but we never pledged allegiance to it.

      • Red Phillips says:

        “And secession is not a power granted the states by the Constitution”

        Oh c_m you have that exactly backwards. Powers were granted by the states to the feds. Powers were retained by the states.

        • c_murrayiii says:

          Powers were barred to the states actually, and those not barred or granted to the national government were reserved to the states and people, this is correct, in the Bill of Rights. However, the Constitution was not a pact between states, it leads with “We the people” and there was quite a detailed debate between federalists and anti-federalists about that. The anti-federalists thought it should read “We the states” but your side lost that battle then, and lost it again on the fields of the Civil War. Secession is not a power reserved to the states or the people. It is not a power at all. It is political suicide. You cannot hide behind the Constitution and then claim a right within the very document you want to throw away. We have an amendment process for changes, but it is a given that nothing short of revolution and war can break the union formed in the Constitution. There is a process for admitting new states as outlined in the document, if they wanted a process for leaving the union, they would have included it. You, as an individual, do not retain the right to sell yourself into slavery, or to waive your right to Life, so the states do not have a right to end the life of the Union. My great, great, great Grandfather fought bravely for the South, I am quite proud of his service for his home, but the South was wrong and so is anyone who really believes secession is valid under the Constitution.

          • Red Phillips says:

            “However, the Constitution was not a pact between states,”

            It most certainly was. The states pre-existed the union. The states sent delegates. The states ratified it. The states would have existed as independent entities after it was ratified had they not ratified it. Would they have ceased to exist? NC didn’t ratify it for a while after it was ratified by a sufficient number of states. Did NC cease to exist during this time.? There was no national plebiscite.

            “and lost it again on the fields of the Civil War.”

            So are you endorsing might makes right?

            “However, the Constitution was not a pact between states, it leads with “We the people” and there was quite a detailed debate between federalists and anti-federalists about that.”

            If there was much of a debate at the time about the actual language I am not aware of that. Link please. There was debate to some degree about the concept. The anti-federalist lost the argument against the Constitution, but the Constitution only passed because it incorporated many anti-federalist/decentralist ideas. This is especially evident in the state ratification debates which contain a whole lot of the defenders of the Constitution denying that it was overly centralizing as the anti-Federalist feared. There was debate about the language (and concept) later especially in the lead up to the War to Prevent Southern Independence. Webster vs. Calhoun, for example. But I think you will find that most of the debate about the language is more 1850s era give or take. The defenders of the “tight compact” were playing word games because the facts and history was not on their side. It was hind-sight wishful thinking for them.

            “but it is a given that nothing short of revolution and war can break the union formed in the Constitution.”

            No it is not a given. The right of a state to secede was pretty much taken for granted by the Founders. The New England states discussed it first. After the LA purchase and during the War of 1812. The trump is that three states withheld the right to secede in their ratification documents. This is a plain and undisputed fact of history.

            • Jeff says:

              Hey Red! YOU LIE!

              Case in point:

              You said:

              “However, the Constitution was not a pact between states,”

              It most certainly was.

              The Constitution of the United States of America says: (emphasis mine)

              We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

              • Red Phillips says:

                I didn’t lie. You misunderstood me. Obviously I wasn’t suggesting that the “we the people” language wasn’t there. I said I wasn’t aware that that particular language was debated at the Convention itself as you suggested it was. (It might have been. I don’t know. That is why I asked for a link.) The use of the “we the people” language as some sort of justification for the absurd idea that the states didn’t create the Union was a later phenomenon.

                Are are aware that prior to the War to Prevent Southern Independence the United States was considered a plural. So one would say the United States are instead of the United States is.

                • Jeff says:

                  Again you lie Red.

                  The United States became a singular in the aftermath of the Second American Revolution, aka the War of 1812. (You know, Old Ironsides, Ft McHenry, the White House burning to the ground, Jackson’s stand in New Orleans, etc)

                  This war ended 50 years before the Southern Rebellion ended.

                    • Jeff says:

                      Nope. It stands. Check out 18:12: The War that Forged a Nation by Walter R Borneman. Really fascinating stuff – gives a detailed account of the entire war.

                      From its last few paragraphs:

                      “The United States have…,” James Madison had written to Congress upon the brink of the ar, employing the plural verb for the nation. “The United States and their territories…,” intoned Congress upon declaring it, again employing the plural. Somehow, in the caldron of war with – to paraphrase Madison – all of “its vicissitudes,” the United States as a plural term for eighteen disparate states had become a single term for one united nation. To be sure, there would still be strong regional loyalties and nagging issues of states’ rights, but at home and abroad after 1815, there was a newfound pride of national identity.

                      So what had the war accomplished? With plenty of missteps, the United States had cast aside its cloak of colonial adolescence and stumbled forth onto the world stage. To be sure, there would be family quarrels – one of which would threaten to tear it asunder two generations hence. But after the War of 1812, the United States was a singular term, not plural. After the War of 1812, there was no longer any doubt that the United States of America would become a force to be reckoned with in North America and in time throughout the world. The war had forged a nation.

                    • Red Phillips says:

                      Jeff, it seems we have dueling sources. At any rate, what I stated was not a “lie.” Note, as was insinuated in the link I provided, that the WBTS was the point around which we changed from a singular to a plural, is often cited positively by supporters of the War. I would assert that it remains the common mythology even if it was more gradual in reality. Yours is the first I have read of the War of 1812 being the changing point.

  15. B Balz says:

    @c_murrayiii, you speak to MY POINT:

    ” …. respect to the fallen … ”

    If a candidate won’t do that, GAME OVER, for me. That’s just one of my litmus tests, as silly and juvenile as it may be.

    • c_murrayiii says:

      Well, I guess we all have our own “less than mature” litmus tests, me for instance, I’m weary of folks who don’t eat meat…how do they get the required protein and iron?

    • Eh, there have been a million Internet flamewars over the past decade about what it does and doesn’t mean to “support the troops”. I hate to flog that poor dead horse any further.

      However, I would point out that there isn’t a single word in the pledge of allegiance that references troops one way or the other. If there’s any connection between the two, it is an additional layer of meaning that one inserts from their own beliefs.

      Hell, people join the military for a variety of reasons. For the truly hardcore, it’s about a zealous sense of patriotism that is similar to religion in many ways. For others, it’s about opportunity for education or job training and a chance to build a productive life. Nobody honors ALL these motives. I’ve got a feeling that you don’t support big funding for schools and jobs training programs… and I myself don’t do the flag-idolatry thing. Neither example has any bearing on our “supporting the troops”.

  16. macho says:

    I’m surprised this wasn’t in his letter, “Some people have started a rumor that I had sex with a pig, with is an absolute lie, as all of my friends will tell you that I only like goats.”

  17. Interestingly enough, I saw a Ray McBerry sticker on the back of an Expedition going north on 400 yesterday with a Fulton county tag. I guess he’s got support from more places than some would like to admit. Just like Oxendine has more support than some would like to admit. I’m not really willing to put forth the effort into bad-mouthing McBerry. I think he’s an interesting character, but I’ll leave it at that. I think the Ox has a better chance at winning the primary than McBerry does… as scary as that sounds.

  18. The McBerry campaign has become tiresome. It was never interesting but some of us got pulled into it like a bunch of rubberneckers passing a particular nasty car wreck.

    I didn’t know whether to be more offended by the ill-informed who ignore history and assume the 10th amendment was a racist creation – and no, I don’t need clarification, I’ve heard enough already – or by those who agree with McBerry’s sentiments enough that they overlook his very obvious flaws and, frankly, his warped self-importance.

    There are good people on both sides of this debate and I’m not just saying that; however, Ray McBerry is not worth the time to argue over. Barring some bizarre and tragic occurrence, this will be my last comment on a McBerry thread.

    • analogkid says:

      Relax, McBerry supporters. I heard a rumor that Ken supported Barack Obama in the last election.

      (FYI, I skipped “bizarre and tragic” and went straight for “false and slanderous.” Your move Ken. :-))

  19. Game Fan says:

    …And to further clarify my position, and I feel I’m being consistent here, I definitely side with Red Phillips on his views about States’ rights and secession, but take more of the “bottom up” approach, since representative government is derived FROM the people. A logical progression would show that the INDIVIDUAL would always prefer the highest level of representation possible closest to to his or her geographical location. Run through the political filter and you will encounter State government BEFORE the Federal government. This is just natural unless possibly you’ve been educated away from common sense or have some type of conflict of interest. So, whatever the “precedent” the fact remains that GAME FAN supports the RIGHT to secede, but not a secessionist. Why all the fuss? Because having no choice is no fun. 🙂

  20. Jason Pye says:

    I’m disappointed in this post and many of the comments. I’m not taking sides here per se, but there are people that have legitimate disagreements with our countries policies and choose to protest in some form or another.

    My father was a Vietnam veteran that died due to exposure to Agent Orange. I was 12 when he passed away. As you can imagine, it took me a long time to learn how to deal with the anger this created and I did it in ways that I’m not particularly proud of now (always peacefully, never breaking the law).

    I do believe people can have a serious disagreement with the policies of their country and still be patriotic.

    I’m not going to condemn Ray McBerry for not saluting the flag, although I continue to be disappointed in his neo-confederate views and involvement in an organization like the League of the South, though I support his right to associate himself with any organization he wants and voice his dissatisfaction with the government, provided he does so peacefully.

    • Doug Deal says:

      Jason, I actually agree with you that attacking him on not pledging the flag is ridiculous. It is also very disappointing that THIS is the issue that people have come to think of as the final straw. As if the hate filled rhetoric was ok until he crossed this particular line.

      We live in a society where there are all types of people with many types of ideas, cultural practices, wants desires and values. McBerry imagines a Georgia, even an entire South composed of clones of his own persona and everyone else is someone to demonize, use as a scapegoat or otherwise blame for our problems.

      This is the M.O. of some of history’s greatest monsters, and I will not quietly stand by and watch him try to co-opt the Republican party for his own racist, secessionist and intolerant ends.

      I love this country. From the suburbs of Cincinnati where I was born and graduated from high school to to the Pacific coast where I formed my first detailed memories, to the coast of South Florida, where I became a teenager, to the state of Georgia, my father’s ancestral home, where I attended college and I have lived my entire adult life by choice.

      I want all of us to succeed, not secede. This requires us to be TOLERANT of views, opinions and judgment of others and realize that our one particular view is not the one and only view.

      The Constitution was designed to be interpreted by all of us, not just Ray McBerry and Red Philips. If one does not agree, convince others of your point of view or suggest an amendment. Otherwise, stop trying to tear the one great hope for the world, the United States of America to shreds in order to create a petty dictatorship for your own pathetic desires.

      The sooner we jettison Ray McBerry to the outgoing tide of history, the better.

      • B Balz says:

        Just to be clear, I would NOT vote for any candidate who chose NOT to salute or pledge to the flag. Period. Yet, I would vigorously fight any government effort to force me, as a citizen, to salute, pledge or whatever to the same flag!

        As a citizen this gesture MAY be voluntarily performed as a unequivocal reflection that others perished so that I might choose, as a citizen, to do what I want to do.

        An elected official is sworn to ‘protect and defend’ and loses their right of choice when they enter the arena of public service.

        The furor over Mr. Obama’s use or not of a flag pin was silly. Yet, had Mr. Obama chosen NOT to salute or pledge to the flag, he might not be POTUS, IMHO.

        I respect alternative points of view, that’s just mine.

      • Red Phillips says:

        “This requires us to be TOLERANT”

        Give me a break Doug. No one has been more intolerant among the anti-McBerry jihadist than you. You are INTOLERANT of views you determine to be “extremist” and outside the “mainstream.” If Patrick Henry arrived on the scene today you would be calling for him to be jailed for treason the same way you did for McBerry. No one has called for you to be jailed. All I have asked is for you to actually present a historical argument to support your anti-state’s rights views and quit being Morris Dees’ mouthpiece.

        Nothing demonstrates your intolerance better than your willingness to be the good little Cultural Marxist and quickly drop the r word and make casual references to Hitler and Pol Pot. Please show me one thing McBerry has ever said that is racist.

        “the outgoing tide of history”

        Spoken like a true progressive. Nothing can stand in the way of the forward march of progress, right?

        • Jason Pye says:

          There is no one I know more committed to the cause of individual liberty than Doug Deal. You’re bashing of anyone that disagrees with Ray McBerry does him so much more harm than good. It’s really a shame that you don’t see it.

          • Red Phillips says:

            Jason, you can not possibly believe it is OK to drop the r word, make references to Hitler and white hoods, make snide elitist remarks about poor dentition and NASCAR, etc. because someone supports original intent, the 10th amendment, the doctrine of enumerated powers, and the right to nullification, interposition, and secession. As a (L)libertarian do you not support those things? If not, which one do you not support?

            For the record, I happen to like NASCAR, and if Doug has decided to locate himself among us flyover country hicks he should at least have the common decency to “tolerate” us and not make condescending remarks about a common local form of entertainment.

            • Jason Pye says:

              I didn’t know that liking NASCAR was a prerequisite for being a libertarian.

              I believe in the concept of federalism and the Tenth Amendment. I do not believe in “states’ rights” because I believe that phrase is a contradiction in terms. States do not hold rights, individuals do.

              I do believe that states should have the ability to nullify a law that violates the Tenth Amendment. I do not believe that a state has a “right” to secede, because I believe that such an action is an act of revolution.

              You guys open yourself up to a lot of the criticism you get because of your choice to serve as apologists for the confederacy.

              You cant revise history all you want, but some of what is said is deserved.

              • Red Phillips says:

                The NASCAR comment was a dig at Doug, whose condescending elitism oozes from his posts. But of course I’m the bigot.

                “I do not believe in “states’ rights” because I believe that phrase is a contradiction in terms. States do not hold rights, individuals do.”

                Rights are not real things. You can’t touch them. You can’t hold them. They are a philosophical construct. And as such, there is no reason why you can’t invest them in individuals or states or other entities. The individual stamping his feet about his right is powerless against the state. That is why the individual needs states or other subordinate political entities to stand in for him. The feds can crush Joe Citizen demanding his rights, but it is much more difficult to crush a state. Peleolibertarians understand this. In fact, this is one of the things that distinguishes paleolibertarians from (for lack of a better and more precise term) left libertarians.

                “I do not believe that a state has a “right” to secede, because I believe that such an action is an act of revolution.”

                Wow, this is philosophically rich. Secession is potentially peaceful assuming the entity being seceded from doesn’t object by force? Were you against the break-up of the former USSR? The break-up of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia? So dissolution of the USSR should have been resisted by force? But revolution is inherently violent. Why on earth would you up the ante that way and rule out the peaceful solution in favor of the violent solution. That certainly does not sound very libertarian to me, that whole non-initiation of force thing.

                Also, you inner Hobbesian is showing whether you know it or not. So the removal of territory from a former political bond is an act of revolution? Read this. It is long but very worthwhile. (I pass the same link along to Doug in the past, but I don’t know if he read it.)

                http://www.secessionist.us/secession_and_the_modern_state.htm

                Here is the passage most relevant to this discussion.

                “the Hobbesian theory of the state helped pave the way for the clumsy, inefficient and destructive leviathans that have ploughed the seas of the political world for the last two centuries. The feature that assisted in this consequence is the doctrine that sovereignty is indivisible, irresistible, and infallible.

                But there is a further consequence. Sovereignty is said to be internal to territory. As sovereignty is indivisible, so is territory. And from this it follows that the secession of a people from a modern state is logically impossible, for secession would require the territorial dismemberment of a state, and that would be to deny that sovereignty is indivisible. It is for this reason that the great modern philosophers and those who follow in their steps today never so much as raise the question of whether secession is morally justified. Their main task has been to theorize and legitimate the modern state.”

                • GOPGeorgia says:

                  Red,

                  To do a little comparison and analogy, let me ask you about another country. Greece is recognized as the first state with democracy. It was founded upon various city state joining together. Does Athens maintain the right to secede from Greece?

              • micah4 says:

                “I do not believe in “states’ rights” because I believe that phrase is a contradiction in terms. States do not hold rights, individuals do.”

                States have rights with respect to the federal government in the sense that the federal government is a creation of the states and was created by a contract among the states.

                In the same way a corporation (a non individual) has rights with respect to other corporations that it enters into contracts with. If IBM hires a marketing firm, they have rights with respect to their relationship with that firm. The idea that only individuals have rights is false.

                There is a certain class of rights, yes, that only individuals have, but these are not the only type of rights that exist.

            • Doug Deal says:

              The previous GA flag, the League of the South, a desire to return to antebellum South, viewing the Confederacy as some kind of ideal and suggestions of racial separation as supported. By LotS members is racism in a not so disguised form. If you do not see it, you are blind, lying or are so brainwashed that there is little hope for you.

              Here’s a quick question: How many black members does your organization have? Any of them become officers?

              In any event, I said nothing disparaging about NASCAR, I made a comparison about how a tiny handfull of you zealots follow McBerry around like people who take their RVs around to watch races from the infield.

              I excuse your mistake, though, due to your gross lack of reading comprehension as demonstrated by your pedestrian comments regarding the Constitution and cognitive dissonance regarding McBerry.

              • Red Phillips says:

                So supporting the previous GA flag is de facto racist? Nice. So is Jeff Chapman a racist?

                Doug, you are remarkably self unaware. You included in your list of people I allegedly don’t like “artsy types” for example. (To be honest, I used to have a thing for artsy chicks, although any relationship probably would not have worked out long term.) Thus I am bigoted against artsy types. Yet you let loose with a long string of the most obnoxious stereotypes straight out of Hollywood central casting – bad teeth, not bathing, white hoods, etc. – to describe people who don’t ascribe to your enlightened opinion. But there is no trace of bigotry in you. No, none whatsoever. Take a look in the mirror Doug.

                • Doug Deal says:

                  You are the one who is a member of the Klan 2000, akkka The League of the South. You are all racists, revisionists and revolutionaries, and by your own admission.

                  That is fine, that is your choice to be a self identified biggot. I would only hope that the more people around you will excercise their first amendment rights and let you know how wrong you are.

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    “The League of the South. You are all racists”

                    So the League of the South is a racist organization and every member of it is a racist? Doug, you are completely incapable of a nuanced thought. You haven’t got the slightest idea what the League of the South is about. All you know is what Morris Dees told you.

                  • Red Phillips says:

                    Above I’m discussing Hobbes with Jason and you are calling names like a child. I think it is obvious who is elevating this conversation, and who is bringing it down. I really do wish you would up your game.

                    • Doug Deal says:

                      Sorry Red, I really dispise people like you who seek to destroy this nation because you have no ability to see the legical conclusion of your actions or statements. You turned off listening to anyone with your “nuh uh” arguments a long time ago.

                      You have not answered one uncomfortable question about McBerry, you NeoKlan group or inconsistancies in your beliefs in the Constitution.

                      Sadly, there is very little you are capable of discussing Red, except to cut and paste talking points only remotely related to what other’s discuss.

                    • Bill Greene says:

                      Well, I kinda thought Doug was an above-average-intelligence dude… until I read this thread.

                      Doug, you do realize, don’t you, that Red has mopped the floor with you, intellectually, by getting you to portray yourself as, well, exactly what he keeps claiming you are?

                      There are plenty of intelligent arguments that could be made on both sides of this debate. However, Doug, you have failed to engage in any of them. Thank goodness we’ve met face-to-face, or else all I would be able to picture you as is, I dunno, some troll under a bridge or something.

                      You’re better than this, Doug. Maybe you should just step away from the Internet for a few days, get some perspective on things. Eh?

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      Bill,

                      I disagree. I think Doug Deal has pointed out that the League of the South has an expressed purpose that runs contrary to maintaining the Untied States as a whole nation. Anyone who freely associates with the LOTS, is by definition a traitor, unless the LOTS is successful in seceding. History is written by winners.

                      The obsession with succession is like watching a train wreck. Everyone stops to look, but they may not like what they see.

                      Just because Red talks about the founding fathers and original intent, doesn’t make him right. He will quote article 1 section 8 and the tenth amendment all he likes, but will he ever look at section 3 article 1? He may not like the concept of judicial review, but the authority for it is laid out there, and since it’s inception, neither that states nor congress have attempted to state that the SOTUS does not have judicial review.

                      If it were up to me, I’d think about charging them all with treason, but I’m OK with free speech even if it’s insane nonsense. They can make little tin foil hats that say 10th amendment on them, and Red and change his name to Reb.

                    • GOPGeorgia says:

                      Reb,

                      Yes, you said that any of the three branches could determine constitutionality, but why not add “we the people to that list?” I disagree with your assessment. The executive branch should implement laws, the legislative branch should write laws, and the judicial branch should rule on laws (and that includes the constitutionality of them.) You are entitled to your opinion, but I am willing to bet that 90% or more of the people want the SOTUS to determine constitutionality.

        • B Balz says:

          I commend you on your knowledge of Con law, history, and enthusiastic support for the candidate of your choice. Your point about Patrick Henry is pretty good, BTW.

          For years prior to this gubernatorial race, I have read some pretty cogent thoughts from Mr. Doug Deal. You are a relative newcomer, so here’s the deal:

          We are an irreverent lot on PP, you might find a wee bit of Irish mischief, humor, and streetfightin’ here daily. The trick to making a point well, IMHO, is to understand your audience.

          At a +/- <2% poll, your audience today is pretty slim. Still, many voters are pulling for somebody named 'undecided', let's see what happens in May/June.

          Until then, may I suggest two steps back, a deep breathe, and a good schlook of the Irish?

        • Doug Deal says:

          Pretty much any criticism spewed by a known hate monger like you is a flattering complement. I thank you. But don’t mind me, keep your white hood clean and dream of the day you can eradicate anyone different from yourself, whether they be blacks, gays, Jewish, Yankees, foreigners, artsy types, the intelligent, the knowledgeable, well bathed, psychologically stable, people with most of their teeth, people not living in 1859, those who love this country and those that aren’t incapable of understanding another’s point of view.

          And, yes if I had happened to be loyal to BRITAIN at the time like I am loyal to the USA I would have turned him over in a heartbeat. Unfortunately for your argument, you are the one who is disloyal to the USA, not me.

          • Red Phillips says:

            “Pretty much any criticism spewed by a known hate monger like you is a flattering complement. I thank you. But don’t mind me, keep your white hood clean”

            I’m a hate monger now? Nice. Cite one example of my “hate” please. Doug you are proving my point. You can’t argue the facts so you resort to amping up the rhetoric and name calling.

            It’s not my fault that I’m arguing circles around you. Go read some books. Marshall your facts. And come back when you can at least make a credible case for your side. I’ll even recommend some resources supportive of your side to help you out.

              • Red Phillips says:

                grift, if I am not mistaken an argument from authority means citing a famous person and saying he believes x. Which could well be true but not necessarily germane to the argument. So where exactly did I do that? And what does this debate have to do with creationism? (For what its worth, I am not a young earth creationist, but I do believe it is self evident that there is a Creator so I reject dogmatic naturalism and materialism as sufficient to explain origins. But please stick to the subject, and let’s not go down that rabbit trail.)

  21. He can do what he wants. His 1 or 2% is pretty telling. With all the spam his campaign sends out, he trumps Oxendine. Well, Ox has trimmed it a whole bunch, but this clown hasn’t gotten a clue.

    • polisavvy says:

      Amen. So, why are people still talking about him I’ll never know. He’s basically non-plus in this election.

  22. Philly says:

    One thing is clear and that is McBerry has his own cult like following.
    If you really think McBerry has even a sliver of a chance to win, I would like to interest you in ocean front property in Arizona…

    • Jeff says:

      Arizona? That has some chance of happening, assuming the Big One really does make an island out of SoCal.

      I’d like to interest them in some ocean front property in NEBRASKA. 😀

        • B Balz says:

          I guess what really riles me about Mr. McBerry is that while using populist rhetoric and the GOP brand, he appears to be a with question marks on his character.

          This sort of ‘candidate’ is toxic to the GOP, given all of the ‘recent unpleasantness’ regarding lapses in judgment and morals among our leaders.

          • Doug Deal says:

            Previous to the molestation story, my concern is that he is basically David Duke 2.0, trying his best to embarrass the party.

            Since my wife is a prosecutor and knowing how extremely difficult it is to convict child molestors in Georgia (everyone wants to give these monsters the benefit of doubt, no matter how clearly guilty they are) he just absolutely sickens me as a human being.

            The fact that his father was/is the chief ADA in the very cirtcuit that a magistrate judge refused to take a warrant on a sworn complaint is extremely suspicious and someone from the AG office needs to look into this to see if any special favors were given by his father.

            From my understanding, cases involving family of the DA’s staff are supposed to be handled by someone outside the circuit, but that might just be the practice in other circuits.

  23. Game Fan says:

    I’m not familiar with this “Betsy Ross” flag issue, but it does seem interesting. In fact I may check it out. Because I’m always interested in the yet-to-be-explored territory so long as it’s not completely mind-numbingly boring. And speaking of dangerous AND boring, what’s astounding is how more people feel more threatened by Red Phillips types than Barack Obama the Bushes or the Clintons. These types are absolutely amazing. And dangerous. And boring all at the same time, just like the legislation coming out of DC. Don’t look now. Here comes another one. See that giant sphincter overhead? That’s the government.

  24. micah4 says:

    I’m surprised by all the acrimony towards the concept of secession. Secession is a neutral action, either it’s a good idea or it’s not. Those in favor or against should be able to present their reasons in a civil, useful discourse without name calling and slandering.

    “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — 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”

    Some have said secession is not a right. Were the framers of the Declaration of Independence wrong, then?

      • micah4 says:

        What if you like everything about the country except for the federal government? And what if 98% of Georgians felt that way? It seems to me that in such a situation- even though it’s far removed from reality- the most proper solution would be peaceful secession.

        I understand the concern over the response (from the feds) that would inevitably follow from that and I don’t think anybody really wants war with the federal government- but it seems to me that fear of those consequences shouldn’t decide how we respond to the idea of secession in a discussion.

        It will always be the case that there’s a right time and a wrong time. The founders clearly thought it was the right time, and we’re all better off that they did, despite the consequences. I don’t think there’s a good case that secession is called for at this present time, but to say that it’s not a right that individuals or states have seems to fly directly in the face of the philosophy of rights that has developed through our country’s history.

        I just don’t understand the knee-jerk reaction the subject seems to evoke among people who seem to be generally intelligent and thoughtful otherwise.

  25. ByteMe says:

    Were the framers of the Declaration of Independence wrong, then?

    They were considered traitors. As would anyone related to Georgia seceding from the USA.

    • micah4 says:

      They were traitors to England, but not to those of their fellow countrymen who wanted to be free. They were guilty of treason, but as has been said elsewhere, treason is a legal issue, not a moral one. Being guilty of treason or being a traitor to an unjust governing power doesn’t mean you’re morally wrong.

    • micah4 says:

      Also, I would say that secession doesn’t necessarily imply treason or being a traitor as was the case when the states seceded from the articles of confederation.

  26. Game Fan says:

    I think secession would be a PR nightmare as well as a possible foreign policy disaster. Say for example after the second takeover of Ft. Sumter some Japanese tourists get hurt.

  27. Game Fan says:

    But seriously, IMHO many-a-voter may simply vote for McBerry out of concern for an out of control Federal government. And of course this sentiment is found in all the political parties as well as among independents. So some of these polls might not be very reality-based. They may not know a thing about the 10th Ammendment or have much knowledge of history, but for many it would simply be about the “direction” they’d like things to go.

  28. Game Fan says:

    But again, as I’ve said many times, among the “experts” reality and political reality are two different things. They don’t even get the “political reality” right very often. Not when political reality is trumped by corporate interests. Americans in general are fed up. How does this outrage not register? How many of you people actually get paid for your “opinions”? And all you have is insults toward voters for an answer?

Comments are closed.