I say divorce those who want a entitlement state. Free America and a Socialist American, which do you think would last and remain solvent?

Thanks, Mr. Williams, for this "thoughtful piece". In your list of Fed government intrusions, (and I know that you didn't think that this was an "exhaustive list") but how about the incandescent "light bulb"????? Examined, tested, "found guilty" and pronounced ruled, regulated, and soon to be "extinct". It is None of the Federal governments' business what I put in my light sockets!!!!

I tell you this "Office of the President" has got to be "put out of business". All of the nefarious, unelected bureaucrats nest over there to the destruction of American Liberty.

Take the "Executive Order" - the legislative arm of this bloated, UNCONSTITUTIONAl "Office of the President". This "Office" is also to be "LIMITED" and yet, the agencies that "expand" from this "UNLIMITED OFFICE", eat out our substance, daily, and destroy our productivity, (OSHA, IRS, EPA etc. and the Dept. of HEW, HUD, Interior, etc.)

The Office should contain the President and his cabinet, that's it. Disband the rest and we shall live FREE.

One more question?? I do want left alone from government intrusion ( I told that to Senator Corker at a Town hall meeting in September last year), but the issue, is "property settlement"???? They can't have me and they can't have my property, so who is "going to give"????

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

I'm inclined to agree with the premise: stick together or separate.

But I don't think that "restoration of the constitutional values of limited government" will happen, either in the short term or (as could be more likely) the long term (if the long term comes to fruition, though, it will likely be a very long time - afterall, we're 250 years (+/_) into what we've got now and look where we are).

My thinking is that the way we were set up way back then was "separate" and we've screwed that up so badly that there's no "separation" line anymore. Our founding documents delineated the "separation", apparently to no avail given our current state.

At the end of the day, if, say Texas, "separates", the only entity that could complain is the Fed. Given we were set up to be "separate" from the beginning, the Fed has no complaint - Texas, by seceeding, would have simply taken a current, clear step in getting back to the way we were. I don't think there is anything that says we can't do that.

Obama has been the most divisive president I have ever seen. And the Social Democrats in congress are not helping by trampling the constitution in the name of 'progress.' (Isn't that what the Bolsheviks were looking for?)

We had a divided Germany for a while. Why not a divided America? I move we do just that! Let's have a national, state-by-state referendum. Winner take all in each state.

Look what is happening already. The folks on are the right have been compliant for too long, and now we are pushing back. Unless something is done soon to alleviate the conflict, I fear we may have to resort to force. I don't relish armed conflict, but will not shrink from the same to defend the constituion.

If we cede any part of America to the socialist machine wouldn't that be exactly along the lines of what they're trying to accomplish, divide and conquer? They would see this as a victory and it would only be a matter of time before they came for the rest. We would be right back where we started defending our individual rights and liberties. While restoring constitutional values and limited government is the goal, placating the socialists is not the answer. If they don't like the rule of constitutional law then they can leave, I'm not surrendering anything.

Triarii, et al

I'm inclined to agree with you outwardly but we'll never be able to convince the liberals that our system works best. We should cede a proportionate share of the USA to the number of citizens that that desire governmental rule & regulation, entitlement programs, heavy taxation and all the rest of garbage that the liberals spew. That clearly leaves our portion to operate freely and they wouldn't be able to sponge off of our earnings. They would collapse under their own weight and we would prosper. They would soon be begging to join us, guaranteed.

Dr. Williams,

Outstanding as always. You seem to know what the balance of the country is thinking and you are always there to confirm our beliefs.

There is NO prohibition in the Constitution for the secession of any state or group of states; or peoples for that matter. I think that the ultra-left should have California, Oregon and Washington state for their playing ground. That would leave the rest of this country for those who truly want to live free. Not only that, the Rockies would make a great boundary between the left and the Right.

Duke

Another excellent article Mr. Williams with some fine points to consider.

However, at the end of the day, I have to agree with Triarii's point of view. We were established as a Constitutional Republic and too much blood has been shed in its establishment, preservation and defense over our 234 year history. There are plenty of Social Democracies, Dictatorships, and Marxist/Maoist Oligarchies around the globe, in every form imagineable, for the Progressive (Regressive) Leftist to chose from. Why? WHY then shoud WE surrender one inch of the American Republic, or one ounce of individual liberty, to return to some form of contemporary, rebranded, European grade servitude? The very THING our founding fathers fought to seperate from.

Let THEM leave these shores and seek the solace of the nanny state in those places where rights are granted by governments, rather than inherited from God. Leave the American Republic to Liberty's children.

In general separation died with the Civil War. The liberals think and said we have to take back our country and we got Obama. The Conservatives think the same and we get what? Are people willing to rise up? what would be the position of the military?

I do not know the answers but know that the separation route will mean bloodshed and I just don't know if we have the stomach for that anymore.

Mr. Williams made the choices clear. Maybe it is time for the 'good' citizens of the USA to consider seceding enmass from the Socialist Republic of the United States of America.

Dr. Williams,

I read your column and comments each and every Monday in the local mullet wrapper, the Pensacola News-Journal. You are forthright and on target as to where the long legged MacDaddy is taking this country. Our local rag the PNS-NJ is headed by the bleeding heart liberal element of the media.

Thank God, they still print your opines and logic.

Keep the heat on Washington and the corruption of Congress as a whole.

God Bless America!

Strangly enough, I wrote this about 2 weeks ago and posted it on a local social forum.

I foresee in my lifetime such major and irreconcilable differences in our citizen's ideologies that the only resolution is splitting the country in the same manner as a divorce splits marital property. No civil war needed.

Very few governments have lasted beyond 200 years and our constitution holds the current win streak, but that may end soon. Unfortunately for the citizens, the majority party at any given time has wielded their power over the minority like a dictator. With instantaneous news provided by TV, radio, and the Internet along with highly opinionated reporting/blogging, public dissent has reached epic proportions. Our present political directions and divisions are unsustainable and on a high speed path to self-destruction.

This is my vision (or version) of the future.

UCSA = United Conservative States of America

ULSA = United Liberal States of America

ULSA keeps everything north of the Mason-Dixon line less KY, VA, & WV and east of the Mississippi River, plus MN and the 3 western coastal states and HI. UCSA gets the rest.

Although I've never been there, Richland or Fairfield, TX sound like the right kind of names and places for the UCSA capital city. ULSA keeps DC.

Similar to the children of a mutually agreeable divorced couple, the population would be allowed to freely move about within the original borders and have no restrictions on trade. However, residents and visitors must comply with the laws of the country they are in at any time. During the transition, current laws would be in effect until confirmed, changed, or repealed along with the administration and enforcement.

Based roughly on current population figures, wealth, resources, and political leanings, the split appears equitable. There would always be liberal and conservative groups within each country, but each would serve their citizens far better in the manner that their respective ideologies dictated. Citizens would then have the choice to live peacefully in the country that most represented their political views or accept suffering in the country that didn't.

What's funny is that the majority who want NO FEDERAL GOVT CONTROL are the very same ones who are constantly clamoring for control of abortion, marijuana, prostitution etc. Its okay for them to impose their religious and subjective moralism on others, but its not okay for the federal gov't to impose on them. Yah, that's gonna work...

Amen! YOur comments are right on.

Separation? How? The commenters have a few ideas, but I was hoping to hear some specific proposal from Williams himself. Something realistic and workable.

Even in the event the United States somehow broke in two along ideological lines, how would one deal with the issue of "blue" voters living in "red" states and vice-versa? It wouldn't be right to force anyone to move, and so the only alternative would be to (somehow) create a political climate that's so polarized that the other side's voters have no wish to stay.

Another thing that bothers me about this? The "red" America would outperform the "blue" economically, just as many of the blue states are the ones mired in the deepest part of the recession now. These blue voters would then immigrate to the red states, turning them purple and eventually blue, and we'd be right back where we started. Besides, there really isn't any such thing as a blue state, just blue cities. (The 2000 electoral map by county demonstrates this.)

And lastly, I don't appreciate everyone being in such a hurry to throw California under the bus. The inner parts of the state are as red as Idaho and Montana.

We tried the Mason-Dixon Line in 1861; didn't work. This time I propose a 'longitudinal' division; that being the Miss. River. The Right can have the West Side (after all, wasn't it the courageous pioneering spirit that came West?). The Left can have the East side of the river. They can keep DC, we'll take San Francisco as our capital. To the question of the "blue" pockets in the area west of the Miss; no worries, as soon as the 'social programs' dry up and those left in the West US realize that if they don't work, they don't eat; the mad dash migration of them to the East side will make the Oklahoma Land Rush of the last century look comical in comparison.