Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Secede, Hell.

Written By: Bob - May• 01•13

A Daily Beast writer named Lee Siegel has issued an “edgy” rant about how much he hates the South, and how he wishes he wouldn’t have to deal with our politics, religion, people, or culture anymore.

He wants us to secede.

Seigel’s display of contempt for flyover country isn’t even original, and appears to have been plagiarized wholesale from a 2004 rant by an anonymous fellow leftist. It’s hardly surprising that Seigel stole his rant. Those that refuse to allow diverging thoughts are by definition stuck regurgitating the same rhetorical hate speech.

But what about this idea of secession? As I recall, the South had tried to take divorce the North in 1861. The North responded by starting the bloodiest war in our history. This not-so-Civil War was the second Great Trashing of the Constitution by statists. The first was Marbury vs. Madison, when the Supreme Court decided it knew more about the Constitution than the guy who wrote it. In both instances, the federal government usurped power from the states, and we’ve been on a road to eventual tyranny of the federal government over the rights of the states and the people ever since.

The few scattered, halting attempts at putting the brakes on federal tyranny that we see from time to time (like the recent defeat of federal gun control bills, panning of Obamacare, and outrage over Obama’s “blessing” of genocidal Planned Parenthood) are at the root of Siegel’s anger. Like his progressive brethren, Siegel only wants the skin-deep illusion of diversity, where people look different, but adhere to the same Orwellian ideology.

He labels the object of his hate “the South,” but that is simply code applying to any area of any size in these Not-Remotely-United States where individual rights are still held sacrosanct. When the linguistic fig leaf is stripped away, we see that the hatred Seigel harbors in his heart also applies to much of New York north and west of the Tappan Zee, California beyond the blight of coastal cities, and indeed most of the rest of nation as a matter of geopolitical geography.

Seigel’s goal—and he’s at least an honest-enough totalitarian to admit it—is lockstep uniformity of thought and action, cloaked in a rainbow of colors… a totalitarian Benetton. Anyone, anywhere, who fails to buy into his ideology is “southern,”  branded an Other, and considered an enemy to be eliminated.

Seigel’s plea for the “South” to secede is nothing more or less than the shunning of every person in every part of the nation that doesn’t believe precisely as he thinks they should. So should we secede to make him and his fellow would-be elitists happy?

Secede, Hell.

The  ideological “South” that believes in the Constitution as it was written and the rights of the individual makes up not just the traditional states south of the Manson-Nixon line, but the southwest, the midwest, the mountain states, and many of the non-urban areas inside even the bluest of the blue states.

Seigel wants an ideological realignment of this nation to assert 100% domination in his proverbial backyard where dissent in completely quashed, but what he’s going to get when push comes to shove is a Constitutional restoration.

We’re not going to be content with just parts of the nation, sir. We’re going to take all of it back, and, that is very easy to do, once we finally decide to take action. It will be short, brutal, and effective, completely destroying the trust in “Big Brother,” and relegate socialism back to the ash heap of history from whence it came.

Documenting police state tactics with an iPhone camera warrants a response with a deadly weapon from the thug in the gun turret.

Documenting police state tactics with an iPhone camera in Boston warrants a response with a deadly weapon from the thug in the gun turret.

As the Great Cowering in Boston showed us, a single unarmed man can hold a city of six million progressives hostage for 16 hours, despite all the visually impressive paramilitary theatrics brought to bear by the state.

How long do you really think you will last, Mr. Seigel, if a few dozen men scattered across the country simply turned off your power at the source? I’ve been chased by agents of the state before after “threatening” these assets. It took them 30 hours to “find” me, and they only did so then because I literally began unloading my gear in their parking lot outside their windows. Leviathan is slow and dumb.

Shutting down an electrical substation is child’s play. Shutting down a half dozen simply takes more time. Once that is done, you have an urban area without mass transit, sanitation, communications, and distribution systems. It would be a scant three days (five at the most) before a failure of civility occurs. New York, Boston, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin, Denver… how long do you think groupthink will last without electricity to these cities? When people realize that the state can’t do everything for them after all, you’ll lose your power base, not just your power.

Keep in mind that as the power collapses, the men and women that have lorded over these cities don’t just lose the faith of the people they can no longer support, they also lose their propaganda machines. There will be no MSNBC, no New York Times or Washington Post or Daily Beast to carry out the crucially important tasks of reinforcing group think. Those that cling to your “the state will take care of us” lie will die, while those that adapt and learn to fend for themselves and their communities will survive. These survivors  will be never trust the state again, an effect of evolutionary learning you never anticipated.

The harder desperate politicians attempt to use brute force to hold everything together, the more people will resist the system. Individual politicians and media figures will be targeted and eliminated. The rest of the elitists will flee the nation, probably to never return.

I see you, Mr. Mayor.

I see you, Mr. Socialist. I hear Europe is nice.

The current government will fall. Progressive ideology will be ended for at least the next generation.

Will we secede, Mr. Seigel? Hell no. Once you miscalculate and overreach and finally trigger a long-overdue battle for the soul of this nation, we’ll succeed in restoring it to the constitutional Republic the Founders intended.

Tread carefully.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Comrade X says:

    “THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated…..

    … God Almighty will not give up a people to military destruction, or leave them unsupportedly to perish, who have so earnestly and so repeatedly sought to avoid the calamities of war, by every decent method which wisdom could invent. Neither have I so much of the infidel in me, as to suppose that He has relinquished the government of the world, and given us up to the care of devils….
    Thomas Paine

    Death before slavery!

  2. NotClauswitz says:

    What he blithly fails to recognize is that there are internal fractures in many states. For one thing California is hardly homogeneously glued-together as onwe unit of Blue. The North and the South hate each other, and there are large regions that the Coastal Elites – who display such contempt-for and regard as flyover-land – would be bereft without. Like all the food-growing area that the state depends on for so much of its capital: not Liberal, not hardly. We’re moving up to El Dorado County, who’s senator is Tom McClintock and where the Sheriff issues CCW freely.
    His epic trolling rant is disingenuous and craptastic – but California and the Nation would probably better off if the state split into two or more parts (rather than secede) – more competition makes for better prices and a free-er market.

    • raybiker73 says:

      Amen, my friend. It’s the same here in Pennsylvania. It used to be that the eastern elitists (Pennsyljersey) hated all of us redneck western hillbillies (Pennsyltucky), political viewpoints notwithstanding. Now, it’s a pretty solid sheet of red except for the deep-blue cesspool islands of Pittsburgh and Philthadelphia. You might hear about crazed left-wing screeds from the Philly mayor or nasty editorials in the Pittsburgh paper, but that stuff doesn’t play well up here in the sticks.

  3. Gayle says:

    His childish rant aside, even mentions of nullification by states of clearly unconstitutional federal laws are met with howls of indignation and outrage by the Left (except for marijuana laws, of course), with resort to claims of the “supremacy clause”, and assertions that only SCOTUS can decide such things. (There is a TON of education that needs to happen with conservatives in this area, in order to rebut this fallacious nonsense.)

    Anyone who thinks the Left *really* would be okay with secession has another thing coming.

    And NotClauswitz, yes, the split is much more between urban and non-urban areas, rather than state-by-state (see a 2012 county-by-county voting map for illumination). It’s the urban leftwits that foisted Obama on the rest of the country this last November. (Okay, the repub establishment had a major hand in this as well ;-)

  4. Mt Top Patriot says:

    Amen Bob

    Could you add Lets Win! after tread carefully?

  5. Secede? I say we invade their states, kill their leaders, and convert the population to Christianity, to paraphrase Ann Coulter.

  6. Cole says:

    The danger here is that we would be creating a state of anarchy in these large urban environments. The idea that the people disconnected from the propaganda and government protection will become free men. But the problem is that anarchy usually spawns tyrants not free men. These people, so willing to enslave themselves to the state for free stuff, are far more likely to beg a strong man to save them. To protect them. To rule them. Crippling these mega cities might push them farther into totalitarianism rather than pull them to freedom.

    BUT, it is a gamble we will have to take. We are at the end of our nation. The Left is pushing with all there might to strip us of our rights. They will not stop. The time for rebellion has come. Prepare and plan. God pray for us all.

    • Comrade X says:


      But may I add one note; we will not be creating anarchy in the urban environments because it is already there. May they (the urban rats) feed on themselves until their numbers can be manage by the handful of Patriots waiting among them!

      Death before slavery!

    • Right_2_Bear says:

      Good post. The problem this time is there will be no central authority to hold everything together as it will be the central authority that gets destroyed. So tyranny and anarchy would be everywhere – not just in urban areas. We’d have gangs and armed groups all across the country vying to be in charge (or left alone). (the movie “The Postman” where some office copier machine serviceman ends up head tyrant commanding a well armed militia comes to mind.)

      Consider the middle east and all the civil war going on over there – human nature is human nature. They all want their “freedoms” but it must be their version of freedom or else. Would we be swapping one large central based tyranny for thousands of smaller ones? Power corrupts. How would the country ever unite after all the divisive class and race warfare rhetoric and policies the left has promulgated over the decades? It may be needed and inevitable, but I have to admit the thought of all out civil war does scare the hell out of me.

  7. lcb says:

    Although I agree with you as to the ongoin effects of the Civil War (Lincoln gave us our modern gubernment)…the North didn’t “start” the war. I’ve often wondered what would have happened if SC didn’t fire on Fort Sumtner. It would have been a court case and the South may have won at the supreme court level without all of the blood shed. Slavery may have faded away, although not for many, many years.

    But…too many men thought the “war” would be fun and games…

    • Real Deal says:

      Actually the North provoked SC into attacking Ft. Sumtner. Lincoln refused to pull the troops off CSA soil after requests were sent to do so, his response was that he’d incrase the garrison and interfere with CSA shipping.

      • Rob Crawford says:

        Please, stop the fairy tale that the North started the Civil War. Secession started before Lincoln was even sworn into office. The slavers had no desire to give up the power they had — the same level of power that the left wishes to reintroduce into this country.

        You CANNOT claim to be for liberty and defend the Confederate States. They were slavers, and they went to war to protect their “right” to rape and murder their “property”.

      • Comrade X says:

        Being a descendent of a family that owned slaves (most likely a family that was a bunch of racist democrats), I sure do hope all slave owners were not murderers and rapist(the question remains; can you be a racist democrat and not be a murderer & rapist), and having been bought up in a south that had water fountains for the color; I do feel as if I know something about racism.

        IMHO there were quite a few racist in the North as there were also in the south, prior to, during and after the civil war.

        The main cause of that war can be said to be the issue of slaves and Lincoln’s election with less then 40% of the vote, if for nothing else the primer that sparked the powder but that powder had been building up over the years for other reasons too, tariffs (check out your history on the Nullification act of 1832), the expanded powers of government, state rights, movement westward, federal bank, Panic of 1837 & the following depression, the Panic of 1857, and it goes on & on; issues dividing the north from the south.

        To say that war was only about slavery isn’t looking at all of history but it is true that slavery was most likely the most emotional issue of the day. BTW; my home state of Virginia first voted again succession and then for it and in the hundreds of pages of the debate during the two Virginia succession conventions slavery was not an issue raised from what I have found, but maybe some one can correct me on that.

    • david7134 says:

      No, the South did not start the war. Why would they do that? It was not in their best interest as a new nation. If you would look at the history closely, it takes a bit as it is carefully editted, you will find that Lincoln sent several groups of warships to Charlston Harbor. This has been called nothing more than a relief effort to feed the men. But the fact is that the citizens of Charlston were feeding them and helping out as much as possible. Thus, Lincoln is the man that started the war with a show of force. The people of Charlston had little choice but to fire on the fort. Then look at where the soldiers placed their shots. After initially exchanging battery fire, they found little effect on the Confederate batteries so they started directly fire at the citizen observers.

      • LCB says:

        Until the courts (possibly) agreed that secession was indeed “legal”…Lincoln was within his rights to do what he wanted with Federal property. If the Southern states HAD won in court, then the hand over of Federal lands was open for negotiation. Remember…before the war what belonged to the Feds and the states was sharply demarcated.

        But the hot heads of the South WANTED the war. With that first shot the war started…and the cause was lost!

        Actually, it wasn’t Lincoln that first tried to supply Sumter…it was Buchanan! What to do about the Star of the West was Lincoln’s first crisis…

        And NO WHERE have I read that Sumter fired on civilians. If they had I don’t think the South would have been so magnanimous about the surrender (marching out under colors so to speak). Firing on civilians by the North came much later in the war. (I’m willing to learn…please cite a source for you claims if you possible…I’ve been known to be wrong a time or two before.)

      • david7134 says:

        Sorry LCB, but you are wrong, as many liberals and Yankees are. You really want to stop a conflict by going to court? I almost feel over laughing. The fact is that Sumter was leased to the US for a Federally constructed fort. You have to remember that this was a time when we had freedom and did not have the oppression of the Federal hand. Thus, they still considered the land theirs. As to verification of my information, read, read more then learn what critical reading is. You learn that in a good Southern college.

  8. Phelps says:


    We’re closer to invasion, in my assessment.

  9. Real Deal says:

    Thing I don’t get is why Leftists/Statists/Socialists won’t just emmigrate to Canada or Europe. The government and society that they desire already exists in those places. I know, I know, a good totalarian leaves no man free…

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Most other countries require that you can show you’ll be a productive citizen and not just a leech off the public service. Hard for the leeches to emigrate in the face of those conditions.

  10. david7134 says:

    I don’t see how we can do anything but resolve our problems without secession or armed conflict. The election process has clearly broken down and our differences with the North are too extreme to be resolved by compromise. When Obamacare further bankrupts the country and destroys the fabric of the economy, then things will happen.

  11. john says:

    It’s time we start putting these people in the ground where they belong.

  12. Junk Science Skeptic says:

    Rather than secession, we need to establish the means by which a state can be evicted from the Union. If NY elects another Cuomo, bang, they’re outta here; if Florida screws up their ballot process one more time, sorry, they’re just too dumb to belong.

    • david7134 says:

      Look at the US and ask yourself, who wants this crap? The US is broke, the economy is in shreds, the military is handicapped due to the politicians and their micromanagement, look at Boston and see the future of law enforcement and respect for freedom. The US is a lie. The demarcation line was clearly drawn in the last election, though I would give Virgina another chance, after all, Lee and Jackson are buried there.

      Lets role.

  13. Big Country says:

    Bob… a quick aside… “Manson-Nixon line” Charlie and Tricky Dick? Thats one line I sure as hell wouldn’t want to cross ;)

    • Bob says:

      Well, the crazies do tend to come from these states… present company included. ;-)

  14. Spud says:

    Fool yankees , they won the last Civil war because they had all the manufacturing base. Now they’ve done given all that up and what little manufacturing is left is mostly in red states. Not to mention that all farming is red. Soon all the gun manufacturing will move out of blue states also.
    So wut ya gonna eat or shoot with you city geeks ?

    • Treker says:

      Great post Bob . The best take away line is ” A single unarmed man can hold a city of 6 million progressives hostage ” . Those are some very true words , well done.

  15. thesouthwasrght says:

    So much fail in Rob Crawford’s post. Actually the last Constitutional Patriots were the Confederates. They stood and fought for what Jefferson, Washington, and so many of our FF’s suffered dearly to create. Southern Armies did not invade north and burn cities, loot, rape, and commit all other sorts of atrocities. It was not Jeff Davis that was a receiver of letters from Karl Marx commending his “war for the people”, no that would be Lincoln.

    It was Lincoln that said “We cannot afford to let them go”. Boiled down to it’s primary reason, the North’s conquest was due to Manifest Destiny and the Port of New Orleans which was putting NY out of business. Period. Slavery was a convenient millstone to hang around the necks of a conquered people who to this day suffer cultural genocide, in other words a bunch of BS to cover up for the crimes committed against the Southern People.