Archive for 04/08/2010

State lawmaker: Lift gun restrictions!

Posted: 04/08/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

This is where I live. This is also great news for us here.

Lynn Dartez

Proposal in Louisiana wants permit-holders given access to parks

Posted: April 07, 2010
9:29 pm Eastern

By Michael Carl
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A state lawmaker who describes himself as a strong Second Amendment supporter says there’s no reason for special restrictions on individuals with concealed carry permits inside the Louisiana state parks system.

State Sen. Troy Hebert of New Iberia has proposed a plan that would give state residents the right to get permits for concealed carry in state parks, a right they already have in national parks in the state.

“Recently guns were prohibited in national parks and state parks,” said Hebert, who filed SB 534. “There was an amendment put on a bill in Congress that struck down that law that banned guns in the national parks and it was signed by the president.

“So what we want to do is put the state parks in line with the national parks where law-abiding citizens can take their guns into the parks,” he said.

Listen to the Hebert interview:

“This is not for hunting purposes but we take our Second Amendment rights very seriously here in Louisiana,” Hebert said.

He said his plan does two things

The first thing is that we see this as an opportunity to put our state parks in line with the national parks,” he said.

“The second purpose is that we want to send a strong message out there that law-abiding citizens have been given a clear right to bear arms,” he said.

He also suggested its passage would deter the plans of “anti-gun” advocates.

“The strategy of these anti-gun people is to erode our rights a little at a time. It they can take the rights away a little at a time, a grain of sand at a time, then pretty soon we wake up and find out that law-abiding citizens won’t be able to have guns,” he said. “We have to be careful that we don’t allow that to happen.”

Jim Wallace, the legislative affairs director for the Massachusetts Gun Owner’s Action League, says Louisiana is miles ahead of Massachusetts in Second Amendment issues.

“The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court just ruled again that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to Massachusetts citizens,” Wallace said. “We’re waiting here in anticipation of the McDonald case so we can try to accomplish a lot of things in Massachusetts.”

Wallace was referring to the current U. S. Supreme Court case, McDonald v. City of Chicago. That case is over “whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the states, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.”

“The gun laws here in Massachusetts since they were changed … are different. We had over a million and a half licensed gun owners in 1998; now we’re down to about 230,000,” Wallace said.

“All of our laws are written from the premise that we don’t have an individual right here in Massachusetts,” Wallace said.

WND has reported six states have adopted state provisions exempting guns made and sold within their borders from federal regulations: Arizona, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Tennessee and Montana.

That is “certainly an interesting concept,” Hebert said.

“There’s an old saying that says, ‘Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ So, we can’t just blame guns for all of the violence we have. We have a society that certainly has some problems, but again we need to make sure that all law-abiding citizens can protect themselves, especially in the times like we have right now,” Hebert said.

“We have to make sure we protect that very precious Second Amendment,” he said. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation. Louisiana has always been pro-gun and I don’t see them changing.”

Thirty-three states have concealed carry permit laws that reciprocally recognize the permits of other states. Louisiana is one of the states along with Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Virginia, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Montana, and most western states, including Washington State and Oregon.

Eleven states or cities allow residents to apply for permits with no guarantee the permit will be issued. Massachusetts is in this category along with Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Iowa, New York, Alabama, DC, New York City and California.

Six states allow their residents the right to a concealed carry permit: Colorado

, Michigan, Maine, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

Illinois and Wisconsin deny the right for citizens to have concealed carry permits.


Posted By admin On April 2, 2010 @ 8:48 pm In Featured Stories

Kurt Nimmo
April 2, 2010 Following sensational news stories claiming the Guardians of the free Republics threatened state governors around the country in letters demanding they leave office or be removed, the FBI has today warned police around the country that the letters “could provoke violence,” according to the Associated Press


Security at the capitol in Nevada was increased after Gov. Jim Gibbons received a letter from the Guardians of the free Republics.

Investigators do not consider the letters threatening or see threats of violence in the Guardians of the free Republics message. However, according to the Associated Press, the FBI believes the organization’s call for removal of top state officials in its Restore America Plan may lead others to act out violently. “While there does not appear to be a credible or immediate threat of violence attached to the letters, we’re working with state and local authorities to continue to assess the matter,” said FBI Special Agent Joseph Dickey of Las Vegas. The letters are from a “sovereign citizen extremist group” and that those groups “reject all forms of government authority,” said Dickey. He said those groups don’t believe they have to pay taxes or obey federal, state or local laws. “As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don’t leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security,” the Associated Press reports. An individual identifying himself as D. Merlin Campbell contacted the Nevada Appeal earlier in the week and denied that the Restore America Plan intends to use violence to accomplish its objectives. According to Mr. Campbell, the letter received by the governor of Nevada and other state officials around the county is actually a Declaration from a lawful Grand Jury of 26 people in each state which is endeavoring to re-establish the true Republic in a peaceful and lawful manner. It does not represent a “threat” from an “extremist” (as is commonly associated with “terrorist” in the media today) group but instead it is a real, legally binding document which is presented by a Grand Jury of regular people which declares that the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, controller and treasurer all must have lawful oaths of office in order operate in their respective positions. The bonds which they all operate under have been effectively seized and noticed to be null and void. The package includes the following; Declaration, Warrants, Orders to the Governors, General orders to the military. It is not a threat, it is a truth that must be complied with or there will be consequences, not of violence, but legal recourse. A comment posted on the Appeal’s website describes the Guardians of the free Republics plan as “a bold achievable strategy for behind-the-scenes peaceful reconstruction of the de jure institutions of government without controversy, violence or civil war.” Is it possible the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security will exploit the Restore America Plan in order to stage a False Flag event that will be subsequently blamed on the patriot movement? It is now almost certain the FBI set-up the Hutaree group in Michigan by inserting agents provocateurs who encouraged violence. The corporate media then orchestrated a hysterical campaign designed to insinuate that the Tea Party movement shares the Hutaree’s anti-government philosophy. The sensationalized raid in Michigan followed a week of corporate media propaganda claiming racist Tea Party activists had assaulted Democrats in Washington as they prepared to vote for the Obamacare bill in Congress. As and others have demonstrated, the accusations had absolutely no basis in fact.  The effort was part of a larger campaign designed to portray the patriot movement as extremist and potentially violent. For months now, CNN, MSNBC, and the corporate media at large – taking their talking points from the SPLC and the ADLhave argued that opposition to Obama and the unconstitutional expansion of the federal government represents the ascension of a dangerous white supremacist and militia movement in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security under the leadership of both Bush and Obama set the stage for the current hysterical campaign with its now notorious report on “rightwing extremism.” Missouri and Virginia contributed to the effort in separate reports characterizing Ron Paul supporters and other patriots as potentially dangerous domestic terrorists. In addition, it appears the government plans to use anarchists to disrupt Tea Party demonstrations on April 15. Agents provocateurs masquerading as anarchists have disrupted peaceful anti-war and anti-globalist demonstrations in the past (most notably in Ottawa where they were exposed as police infiltrators and rabble-rousers). The pattern is now familiar – anarchists engage in minor property damage and other theatrical acts and this provides riot police with an excuse to brutally attack peaceful demonstrators. It is uncertain if this tactic will work with the Tea Party demonstrations. It also remains to be seen if an “extremist” group under the control of government agents provocateurs will exploit the Guardians of the free Republics letter in order to engage in violence. A Red Alert, however, should be issued and members of the patriot movement need to be on the outlook for suspicious activity within their ranks. It is certain, however, that the government is looking for the right situation in order to crack down on the patriot movement. The establishment is infamous for staging fake terror and criminal events as a pretext to take drastic action against those who oppose their plans. Finally, Obama publicly named two of his more prominent enemies on CBS today. This is highly unusual. Presidents never mention their foes by name as this has a tendency to lend credence to them. Not even Nixon named his enemies in public. Obama’s comments may mean nothing. On the other hand, he may have issued a warning to those who oppose him. It is interesting to note he mentioned Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, who are in essence shills for the establishment. The breach of etiquette, however, should be taken as a warning to those Obama does not name but are generally associated with the patriot movement and often linked to Beck and Limbaugh, however erroneously, by the corporate media.

Article printed from Infowars: URL to article:

Updated for the 111th Congress

The following FAQ will help clarify a few facts:

Q: What is the Socialist International?

A:  It is the worldwide organization of socialist, social democratic and labor parties. It currently brings together 131 political parties and organizations from all continents. Its origins go back to the early international organizations of the labor movement of the last century.* It has existed in its present form since 1951, when it was re-established at the Frankfurt Congress. They are now headquartered in London, England.

* In 1864, representatives of English and French industrial workers founded the International Workingmen’s Association in London. Karl Marx, who was living in London at the time, became the First International’s dominant figure. Marx’s doctrines were revived in the 20th century by Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, who developed and applied them – and we all know that what was started as a labor movement ended up as the biggest totalitarian/communist state, i.e., the USSR.

Q: What is the Democratic Socialists of America [DSA]?

A: It is the largest socialist organization in the United States, and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. Their website is

Q: What are seven principles behind what the DSA’s calls it’s “Progressive Challenge?”

Dignified Work
Environmental Justice
Economic Redistribution
Democratic Participation
Community Empowerment
Global Non-Violence
Social Justice.

Never mind their soothing-sounding leftist doublespeak like ‘Environmental Justice’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) or the soft & fuzzy ‘Global Non-Violence’ (a euphemism for unilateral disarmament) — the DSA’s self-declared principle of ‘Economic Redistribution’ clearly shows where these folks are coming from and exactly where they plan to take America.

Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?

A: Seventy!

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?

A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez, Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of Congress?

A: See the listing below

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Source: Congressional Progressive Caucus

State No. 6 tells feds to stuff their gun regs

Posted: 04/08/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

Arizona declares weapons exempt from national firearms paperwork

Posted: April 07, 2010
9:25 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A sixth state – Arizona – now has declared that guns made and kept inside its borders essentially are free from federal application, registration and ownership regulations in a surging movement among states that one supporter describes as a direct challenge to “a government monopoly on the supply of firearms.”

Gov. Jan Brewer this week signed the state’s version of a “Firearms Freedom Act,” which originated in Montana and now has been adopted by six states, with several dozen more in various stages of their own plans.

Brewer issued a statement that the law is intended to give Washington the message that they should not try to “get between Arizonans and their constitutional rights.”

Arizona joins Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah and Tennessee as well as Montana, where Gary Marbut of the Montana Shooting Sports Association was a key proponent.

Marbut has warned that under the current system of federal approval for gun purchases, federal registration requirements, federal restrictions and federal limits, the U.S. essentially has established a monopoly on guns.

All the information you’ll ever need about guns, ammo and a special video on how to make them, found in the “Firearms Multimedia Guide.”

The “Firearms Freedom Act” measures being adopted around the nation now, he said, are supported by the Ninth and Second Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and are needed to break down that monopoly.

In an analysis posted on the ProGunLeaders website, he wrote:

“The current federal scheme of regulating the supply system for new firearms in the U.S. is so complete it might actually constitute a government monopoly on the supply of firearms. Under current federal regulation, no firearm may be made and sold to another person without federal government permission – not one firearm,” he wrote.

“With the natural right of self-defense, people must also be allowed access to firearms made and sold outside the government-controlled supply chain,” he said.

To submit to a government gun monopoly, he said, would be to believe “that the Constitution is an old, dead, obsolete and meaningless piece of paper, the Ninth Amendment is as worthless as the rest, and has no relevance to the [Montana Firearms Freedom Act],” he wrote.

“If the observer believes that the Constitution actually means something, and that those who ratified the Constitution and its amendments had authority to do so, that they understood meaningful terms precisely as used and applied in their time, and that they knew what they were doing, then import of the Ninth Amendment begins to come into focus.”

Derek Sheriff reported at the Arizona Tenth Amendment Center that Arizona’s bill asserts “Arizona’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and the people’s unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment. They also emphasize the fact that when Arizona entered the union in 1912, its people did so as part of a contract between the state and the people of Arizona and the United States.”

Kurt Hofmann of the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner said the surging movement across the states is “a challenge to the federal government’s grotesquely expansive use of the interstate commerce to regulate – well … everything, whether it has anything to do with interstate commerce or not.”

“Liberty doesn’t just happen – it needs to be worked for,” he said. “Getting that work done can make the difference between having to work for liberty, and having to fight for it.”

Marbut, who has described himself as the godfather of the Firearms Freedom Act movement, has reported previously that while Constitution’s Commerce Clause can be viewed as regulating interstate commerce, it also can be viewed as having been modified when the later Second Amendment assuring citizens of the right to own weapons was adopted.

No less significant, he suggests, is the Ninth Amendment, which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In the Western world, he said, “Individuals voluntarily surrender some portion of their political power to the community of their state in order to empower the state to do some selected things for them in common that they cannot do well or effectively as individuals. The political state of individuals, in turn, surrenders a specific portion of its collected political power to the United States under our federated system, and for the same reasons.

“However, it is important to note two important points. First, this grant of power from sovereign individuals to state, and secondarily from state to federal, is a limited transfer of power. Under this system, people do not sell themselves into slavery to unlimited governments, nor do they fail to delineate limits to this grant of political power to governments. Second, this grant of power from individuals to government is for a very specific purpose.”

The Declaration of Independence states “governments are instituted among men” “to secure” the rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” he writes.

Throughout the founding of the U.S., he explains, individuals always have granted “carefully specified powers” to a central government, not an authoritarian right to control everything.

Specific rights were retained in the Bill of Rights, which was never intended to be an exhaustive list. Hence, the Ninth Amendment, he said.

“Some of those most interested in instituting a federal government ‘to secure these rights’ understood that it would be impossible to provide an exhaustive catalog of rights inherent in people as a part of their humanity, ‘natural rights’ or ‘liberty rights,'” he wrote.

He said there are powers and rights that cannot be particularly enumerated, and if a list of rights is specific, it could be interpreted that no other rights exist.

“The Ninth and Tenth Amendments [reserving other rights to the people and states] were added to protect all rights not listed in the first eight amendments,” he said.

“Examples are the right to privacy, the right to self-defense, the right of freedom of conscience, and the right to choose in one’s own affairs, all considered to be important individual rights but none mentioned under the list of protected rights in the Bill of Rights,” he said.

Applying it to the present case, he said, the right to self-defense strongly implies the right to keep and bear arms.

“Of what value are any or all of the other protected rights if a person may not defend the person from threat to life or limb? How could a newspaperman exercise his freedom of the press if he could be killed with impunity? How could any person effectively exercise his freedom of speech if he could be summarily killed because he exercised that freedom?” he asked.

When South Dakota’s law was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds, a commentator there noted it addresses the “rights of states which have been carelessly trampled by the federal government for decades.”

Marbut has told WND the issue is not only about guns but about states’ rights and the constant overreaching by federal agencies and Washington to impose their requirements on in-state activities.

Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center said Washington likely is looking for a way out of the dispute.

“I think they’re going to let it ride, hoping some judge throws out the case,” he told WND earlier. “When they really start paying attention is when people actually start following the [state] firearms laws.”

WND reported earlier when Wyoming joined the states with self-declared exemptions from federal gun regulation, officials there took the unusual step of actually including penalties for any agent of the U.S. who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal gun rules on a “personal firearm.”

The costs could be up to two years in prison and $2,000 in fines for an offender.

But the bellwether likely is to be a lawsuit pending over the Montana law, which was the first to go into effect.

As WND reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula, Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, which took effect Oct. 3, 2009.

Marbut argues that the federal government was created by the states to serve the states and the people, and it is time for the states to begin drawing boundaries for the federal government and its agencies.

In demanding the dismissal of the case, the government claimed the authority to regulate even “intrastate” commerce if it chooses.

In an analysis by the Tenth Amendment Center, the gun laws were described as a nullification.

“Laws of the federal government are to be supreme in all matters pursuant to the delegated powers of U.S. Constitution. When D.C. enacts laws outside those powers, state laws trump. And, as Thomas Jefferson would say, when the federal government assumes powers not delegated to it, those acts are ‘unauthoritative, void, and of no force’ from the outset,” said the analysis.

“When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘noneffective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned. Implied in such legislation is that the state apparatus will enforce the act against all violations – in order to protect the liberty of the state’s citizens.”

Special offers:

Here are answers to all your questions about guns, ammunition and accessories.

Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

Perfect gift for pistol-packin’ mama – ‘Stayin’ Alive’ shows guns are indeed for girls

“Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense”

It’s time to part company

Posted: 04/08/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Walter Williams

Walter Williams ONE POLITICAL QUESTION we have to answer is whether George W. Bush or Albert Gore shall be president, and just which party will control the House of Representatives and the Senate. But I’d suggest that there’s a far more important long-run question we must answer: If one group of people prefers government control and management of people’s lives, and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences, or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?

Like a marriage that has gone bad, I believe there are enough irreconcilable differences between those who want to control and those want to be left alone that divorce is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Let’s look at just some of the magnitude of the violations. Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution enumerates the activities for which Congress is authorized to tax and spend. James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, explained it in The Federalist Papers: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

Nowhere among the enumerated powers of Congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress’ mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end.

Americans who wish to live free have two options: We can resist, fight and risk bloodshed to force America’s tyrants to respect our liberties and human rights, or we can seek a peaceful resolution of our irreconcilable differences by separating. That can be done by peopling several states, say Texas and Louisiana, controlling their legislatures and then issuing a unilateral declaration of independence just as the Founders did in 1776.

You say, “Williams, nobody has to go that far, just get involved in the political process and vote for the right person.” That’s nonsense. Liberty shouldn’t require a vote. It’s a God-given or natural right.

Some independence or secessionists movements, such as our 1776 war with England and our 1861 War Between the States, have been violent, but they need not be. In 1905, Norway seceded from Sweden, Panama seceded from Columbia (1903), and West Virginia from Virginia (1863). Nonetheless, violent secession can lead to great friendships. England is probably our greatest ally and we have fought three major wars together. There is no reason why Texiana (Texas and Louisiana) couldn’t peaceably secede, be an ally and have strong economic ties with United States.

The bottom line question for all of us is should we part company or continue trying to forcibly impose our wills on one another?