I found this on the Freeper site. Some guy actually posted this.

[Codeblue]

And it's why I am so frustrated with the conservatives AND with liberals. We need to start actually taking action to prevent this kind of nonsense. What follows is the view of the Freepers.



Many here are familiar with the Free State Project, an attempt to take over a small state politically by supporting classical libertarians (like Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine) and electing them to public office. Then they propose to change the government though legal and constitutional means to basically evict the federal government from that state as well as remove any freedom robbing state and local laws.


To do this, people from all over the country are urged to move to New Hampshire and establish a new life there. That is a commendable goal but the outcome is improbable at best as I cannot really see thousands of people quitting their job to move to a part of the country that they are unfamiliar with and no job to boot.


My suggestion is to get the people of a state that has a fairly large area of rural areas but are dominated by the liberals in a tiny number of cities, and secede from that state, form a new state ans immediately petition Congress for admission into the union for recognition as a new state.

IMHO, the following states are ripe for secession and a split and because of a large liberal population in a relatively small area basically control the entire state.
New York (secede all counties more than 50 miles from NYC and Long Island),
Pennsylvania (secede all counties more than 50 miles from Philadelphia),
Oregon (secede all counties more than 30 miles from Portland)
Illinois (secede all counties more than 50 miles from Chicago),
Washington (secede all counties more than 30 miles from Seattle),
Missouri (secede all counties more than 50 miles from St. Louis abd possibly Kansas City),
Georgia (Southern and Western secede amd leave Atlanta and the NW counties),
There may be more but these come to mind immediately.

The US Constitution states in Article IV. Section 3. "New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." This would seem to indicate that in order for several counties to split from a state, it must first receive permission from that state's legislature. However, when West Virginia split from Virginia, it simply formed a separate state government and declared itself independent of Virginia WITHOUT THE PERMSSION OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. To this day Virginia has never voted to allow West Virginai secede. When they applied for statehood, Congress quickly admitted it. Congress would not be able to reject recognizing the state because precedence has already been established.

The advantage of my idea is that in the states that I mentioned, the new states would distance themselves from their liberal big city cousins and form a government that is MUCH more like the one that our founding fathers envisioned; maximum freedom and minimum government.



New state constitutions could be written that specifically prohibit the transfer of wealth from the workers to the leaches and guarantee in specific writing that all adults will have certain rights. The wording can be such that not even a New York liberal lawyer could argue that they mean something other than what was written. An article would be included that prohitits an income tax and restricts any increase in the state and local budgets to inflation plus population gain without voter approval.

Taxes could also be restricted to an end user tax ONLY and no person may be compelled to pay any tax under threat of arrest, prosecution, or forfeiture of property.

The state would be prohibited from taking any federal money with string attached that would compel the state to pass certain laws.

Politicians would be term limited and judges would be restricted to a single 10 year term at any single level and no more than 20 years at all levels combined.

People would not be required to leave the land they have live on their entire life but would find that their state is now a magnet for business wanting to escape high taxation and high regulation anti-business regions.

Perhaps best of all, these new states could add up to 14 new (hopefully conservative) senators that would shift the balance in the Senate away from the liberals with their RINO counterparts. The AW ban that passed as an amendment would have been defeated by a vote of 63 to 52 instead of passing 52-49.

[ThomWV]

1. Huh

The excerpt from the Constitution makes it very difficult to understand how West Virginia came into being.

[Codeblue]

2. Well

the way I understand it, Congress admitted it into the Union because they were looking for more support against the Confederates.

[JohnLocke]

4. The guy who posted this is an moron.

West Virginians wanted to stay in the union when the Confederates in eastern Virgina seceded during the civil war in 1863. Therefore, Virgina wasn't a state and didn't have a state legislature at the time. You can read more here.

[Dookus]

5. It's complicated

at the time of West Virginia's formation, Virginia itself was in secession from the union. A "restored government" was recognized by the Union, and it was this government that approved the creation of West Virginia.

I don't think this would be precedent for any future attempts to create a new state.

[aquart]

3. Poor idiot. His biases have blinded him to the realities.

New York City can't secede. Us liberals support the conservatives in Albany who actually do the controlling. They won't let us go for nothing. Likewise, they'll never secede from their moneypot.

That's the thing about liberal areas. They usually have more people than cattle, and more money than people.

But, nice try.

[HawkerHurricane]

6. Absolutly true

The areas he describes as 'liberal' is where the money is. The conservative areas are where the money goes to.

There were a great set of maps (that I wish I could find online) in back to back issues of Business week for December 2000. The first one showed which states 'officially' went for Bush and Gore. The second, a week later, showed which states payed more in federal taxes than they recieved back. The two maps MATCHED: The states that went for Bush were all states that got MORE money from the feds than they paid in.
Oh, yeah, two exceptions. Texas and Florida.
Republican states want money from the liberal states, and want to not pay thier share. So let them secede. What are they going to do for money? They can't get it from us, if they don't want our politics they can't have our money.

[KharmaTrain]

10. I Was Young, Once...

Now if we "draw a line 50 miles around"...that's the one that got me.

I live within 50 miles of Chicago...and this area is and has been predominately Repugnican. If anything, my area would love to suceede from not only the state, but the county and the planet.

What I find most amusing of this "mental exercize", is that liberals are supposed to be in favor of inclusion not setting up some "free zone"...then forcing majority rule on the minority. Is it me, or does this entire thing sound a bit hypocritical?

[Aidoneus]

7. funny how that worked out

I sometimes think Oregon & Washington should secede, just not from Portland & Seattle..

[Rich Hunt]

8. oh, ha ha ha ha ha ha...

Like that would ever be possible in Illinois.


:crazy:

[mistertrickster]

9. Actually, some wack-os tried this in my state of Kansas. They

called themselves the Posse Comitatus (after the clause in the Constitution that forbids the military being used against American citizens).

It didn't work out for them.

The one good possibility about this idea is that all the right wingers would move there, repeal all the environmental and safety regulations, and kill themselves off. Learning the hard way that making hand grenades legal might not be a good idea . . . Kinda a Darwin award thing.

[SheilaT]

11. Another comment from Kansas.

Several years back some counties in the western part of the state were agitating to secede. They had no idea to what extent they depended on tax revenues from the liberal, eastern part of the state. They'd have NOTHING, no roads, no schools, no services without us. Typically they have exempted agribusinesses and oil business (yes, there's oil in western Kansas) from paying much in the way of taxes, and then they cry about how poor they are.


I despise them. I'm tired of being reviled because I'm liberal and I pay more taxes to help out my less fortunate brothers and sisters.

[jmowreader]

12. I say we let 'em do it in one place

Let's make sure it's someplace really cold. Maine would be good.

This freeper utopia will have no corporate welfare (meaning no large business will ever move there--when BMW went into Spartanburg, the state had to agree to not tax them for ten years), no taxation of any kind (if no person is compelled to pay any tax under threat of arrest, prosecution or forfeiture, no one will pay taxes at all), and hence no development.

Naturally, part of these "certain basic rights" is freedom from compliance with the International Building Code and the National Electrical Code. This translates into people living in the street because no mortgage lender will gamble on an uninsurable house and no insurance company will gamble on a house that's got fifty-amp breakers feeding 14-gauge wire, 2x3 studs, a 30-gallon water heater for a house with two bathrooms and a dishwasher, and no insulation.

After a year, when the roads are destroyed but they can't be repaired because there is no money, 20 percent of the state's residents have frozen to death in their refrigerator boxes, every business in the state has gone to greener pastures (like Massachusetts) and the names John Steinbeck and Charles Dickens flow into everyday conversations, the non-freeper residents will ask President Kerry to send the Marines in to return the state to sanity.