Funny, our country seceded from England, yet 100 years later, the sitting President will not let states secede from our country? Apparently, Lincoln did not see the irony.

Upon the events of early 1861 in which several states, in legal elections, voted to rescind their ratification of the aforementioned agreement. A deranged, mass-murdering psychopath waged a vicious war of genocide, rape, torture, and murder against the Citizens of said states.

What Lincoln’s armies couldn’t steal, they burned. Rather than suffer the death of every man, woman, and child, the Citizens of those (former) states threw up their hands and cried “uncle!… okay, okay, the sky IS red… whatever you say! just stop killing our children!”

After the war, during the blackest stain in the history of Washington’s [now illegitimate] government (a.k.a. “reconstruction”) the value that wasn’t stolen by Lincoln’s army of criminals, conscripts, thugs and ’48ers, was stolen by the carpetbaggers, politicians, and [blech] scalawags (think Bill Haslam, et al).

There is an unbroken chain of events leading directly from the McClean farm in Appomattox, to the coercive, intrusive, terrorist-state that is washington’s government today… So YES, I see no need for Washington, and would be much happier with 50 (or 5,000) separate nations on the soil of the North American continent.

I guess that’s my point. Esquire is talking to their choir. I read the review and then look at the comments and unlike some other blogs I have to struggle to even understand what the heck they are talking about. There are elitists on the right I raise my eyebows to, but some on the left like Esquire, I really think are “out there” and aren’t even good at demmagoguery. Of course I admit I am a blue collar guy and might be missing the significance of it all..

It’s important to bell the cat wherever it appears. Don’t let the opposition own the debate. Use such opportunities for education as just that. Otherwise, you’re just talking to the choir.