THANK you for your COMMENTS ggcggc. But I'll have you know that I live in the WEST and perceive NO widespread ANIMOSITY toward the East COAST. In fact we're ALL in this TOGETHER so why not get used to IT?

"Soembody needs to force them to read Lord Of The Flies."

No--somebody needs to force them to live LORD OF THE FLIES.

@OddjobXL

***SPOILER ALERT***

Lets not forget what happens in Bioshock: Rapture quickly dissolves into competing factions of spaced out Splicers, authoritarian Big Daddies, horrific little girls bred to extract goo from dead bodies, and founder Andrew Ryan bludgeoned to death half-way through the game.

Hey, the more I think about it, the more I like this idea!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That 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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--The Declaration of Independence

@ Bill B.

It has been amusing for the last few years to listen to the Thom Hartman show when he invites people from the Ayn Rand Institute to debate public policy. Invariably, Hartman backs them into a corner and forces them to admit that they don't like democracy. He has usually done this with a "well, if the majority votes for universal health care, what's the problem?

And if the majority votes for secession, what's the problem?

Brilliant.

I used to call myself a Libertarian. I was young.

No girls allowed ...ROFLMAO. Honestly. I think you captured the movement. Spot on.

ggcggc: "In short, Westerners simply want and demand a government that looks and acts like Westerners"

As a native, life-long Westerner, I find this assertion to be highly amusing at best.

ggcggc: "And, per Jefferson, Westerners HAVE the right to revolt and to secede IF westerners choose."

Jefferson didn't assert a Constitutional right to secede. He instead referred to potential bloody revolution against the government - aka treason.

ggcggc: "And, many in the West DO wish to leave the corrupt-ridden government of the United States, and to form a "More Perfect Union"

Half of Texas Republicans and an even smaller proportion in other Western states may constitute "many Westerners" in your mind; in my mind Western secessionists are a marginal, albeit sometimes noisy, lunatic fringe (though granted that margin/fringe is relatively large in Texas).

ggcggc: "in a WESTERN mode"

Which "WESTERN" mode are you talking about? Texan or Californian? Alaskan or Oregonian?

ggcggc: "This nation has a history of secession as a matter of rights."

Indeed. And that "history of secession" culminated in the American Civil War - you may have heard of it. Lincoln asserted not long before said war started that the only American "right of secession" was a revolutionary right, not a Constitutional right. Lincoln maintained that the so-called "right of secession" was at its core deeply and fundamentally unconstitutional. The country then went to war in large measure over that assertion, which as you may recall the secessionists didn't fare to well in.

Moreover, the Supreme Court then ruled decisively in favor of Lincoln's position that secession was at its core deeply and fundamentally unconstitutional.

ggcggc: "It is time for it to occur again for the GOOD of this region's citizens."

< cue Twilight Zone theme music >

As a proud member of the "ELITES," which I gather from your note means the irrationally demonized residents of the Northeast or anyone who went to school, I support you completely. I would like Texas to secede and get them out of our country. You don't want us. We don't want you. One of the few things I bet we agree on.

[N]o State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority.

-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861

Lincoln's opinion is interesting.

You may find this of interest:

A Constitutional History of Secession

http://tinyurl.com/dgxun9

are searchin, for the source

of fluid karma...

The whole question of secession raises interesting issues regarding the democratic rights of the people. If a majority in any state so wishes to secede, therein lies many interesting issues involving democracy and whether states are indeed sovereign. They joined the union freely (except Hawaii, which has been acknowledged to have been taken at the point of a gun); cannot they also exit it just as freely? My only point here is to stimulate this discussion.

But I've got some pressing appointments right now, so I'll be back later.

:)