You do know the president is black, don't you?
Damn, elect a black man named Barack Hussein Obama president of the United States and white folks just lose their minds. Who knew?
Not that State Representative Susan Lynn had much of a mind to lose, but you hate to see an elected official take the head-first plunge into the deep end of bat shit crazy.
Lynn has done just that by touting her leading role in the state sovereignty movement. Yeah . . . she sent out a press release about it . . . and put it on her blog . . .
Bless her heart.
In case you’re wondering, the state sovereignty movement is a bunch of white state legislators passing worthless non-binding resolutions in their legislative bodies “affirming” their state’s sovereignty under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment . . . as if that isn’t affirmed by the 10th Amendment itself.
Still confused? That translates as a bunch of scared, conservative white legislators pandering to their scared, conservative white constituents by waving around a piece of paper and screeching, “See, we don’t have to do anything the black guy tells us to do. I’m protecting you from the black guy.”
Lynn was a lot less pathetic when she spent her time lying about why her General Assembly colleagues endorsed her primary opponent.
Of course, reasonable people see through her posturing. This probably isn’t what she hoped for when she shot out her moronic presser, but Christian Grantham gives Lynn this smackdown:
Rep. Lynn might not realize that Tennessee is one of the fattest welfare queens of the federal government, sucking the wealth out of other states for Tennessee to the tune of $1.27 for every dollar sent to Washington so Rep. Lynn can ease the tax burden on her donors.
Rep. Lynn hasn’t explained where all those millions and millions of dollars would come from under her vision of state sovereignty, but let’s hope it doesn’t come in the form of “watering the liberty tree with blood” and praying the offering magically produces enough to pave roads and pay teachers, police, and firefighters.
To which No Chaser adds, “Damn straight.”
(H/T Kleinheider)
Update: Liberadio! weighs in on the “dog whistle for the armed and paranoid.”
Seed Newsvine
22 Comments
09/02/2009 at 8:53 am
[...] CHASER » Losing They MindsPosted 28 minutes [...]
09/02/2009 at 9:41 am
Why is it that every time someone calls for states rights, opponents call it racist? As if there is not a single African-American that follows LewRockwell.com or believes that states should have more rights the the Federal government? It is very bigoted to think that no one can believe in there own state with out being a racist.
09/02/2009 at 10:19 am
Why so defensive, Colin?
I have no disagreement with federalism. In fact, I’m a proponent.
I, however, think this sovereignty movement is bullshit demagoguery — the same as it was when states’ rights were used as an argument against civil rights legislation.
Where is the federal government oppression, Colin? We live in the most free society in the history of the world. The overwhelming majority of government workers aren’t evil overlords. They are hard-working public servants –
Just like you, right, Colin?
09/02/2009 at 11:43 am
CLICK HERE for an official announcement from Susan Lynn and the sovereignty movement.
09/02/2009 at 3:37 pm
[...] More from No Chaser. [...]
09/02/2009 at 10:41 pm
Bat shit crazy = Susan Lynn
Thanks for saying what we are all feeling.
09/03/2009 at 4:04 am
[...] More from No Chaser. [...]
09/03/2009 at 7:47 am
[...] Those state sovereignty resolutions are racist. [...]
09/03/2009 at 9:07 am
Let’s recount how the state sovereignty movements have worked in our nation’s history:
Articles of Confederation gave states too much power, resulting in gridlock and ineffective governance…leading to the Constitution.
Nullification Crisis of 1832 – SC said they could veto a Federal tariff. Pres. Jackson mobilized the army to invade SC and hang the leader (John Calhoun) from the first tree he could find. SC backed down.
Civil War – seems like I remember something about this one…didn’t secession lose that battle?
Civil Rights – because southern states should have the right to oppress millions of citizens because they have darker skin than other citizens.
State sovereignty movements are ridiculous and you’d be hard pressed to find reasonable, respectable politicians/leaders who genuinely support this movement.
09/03/2009 at 10:16 am
Sounds to me like you’ve embraced the Willie Herenton School of Political Thought – when all else fails, blame Whitey.
09/03/2009 at 10:45 am
Sigh, I guess it’s too much to expect reasonable replies from the wingnuts. No reply to the history of the states’ rights movement. Just the invocation of a polarizing black politician.
09/03/2009 at 11:10 am
Just how can one reasonably respond to this?
“That translates as a bunch of scared, conservative white legislators pandering to their scared, conservative white constituents by waving around a piece of paper and screeching, “See, we don’t have to do anything the black guy tells us to do. I’m protecting you from the black guy.”
09/03/2009 at 2:22 pm
Play dumb all you like, Rust. Chris has laid out the history for you. We all know it.
Conservative white politicians in the U.S. have demagogued under the “states’ rights” banner for over a century. The mantra is so tied into racial issues that it has become like a dog whistle, as other writers have noted. When certain politicians say “states’ rights,” white conservatives, especially the southern variety, know what they mean.
If you don’t know it, why are you so defensive?
09/03/2009 at 3:55 pm
Not being defensive, just taking offense to the racist tone of the post, hence the King Willie reference.
09/03/2009 at 4:44 pm
Come on, Rust. You’re not addressing the central thrust of the argument: white conservative politicians have historically used “states’ rights” as a cover for racial demagoguery. The United States now has a black president, and conservative white politicians drag the “states’ rights” flag out of the closet.
That’s not “racist.” That’s history.
09/04/2009 at 10:35 am
Um, so those evyl whiteys have been demogoging the states rights issue for “over a century” and that’s racist because them there whiteys don’t want to take orders from the black president. Presumably you can’t see the contradiction here. Maybe there are some people that don’t want a bureacracy that is several thousands of miles from their home and has not a clue about life in their community telling them what they need and what they should do and, by the way, pay 75 cents on the dollar of tax money to bureaucratic overhead instead of what it is supposed to. Naw, couldn’t be that.
Might want to spread out your world view a bit, learn a bit more and gain a better understanding of the world around you and the forces that govern it. All those people that you’ve been conditioned to believe are “Eeeeeeevyl” are really just folks. They don’t hate you, they don’t hate the people you think they do (in fact they rarely hate anyone). Generally they just want everyone to get along and live their lives. Sorry if that doesn’t fit your strawperson vision of people that don’t think the same things you do.
09/04/2009 at 10:47 am
RC, your clocktower called. It’s ready for you and your sniper rifle.
09/04/2009 at 3:36 pm
My, my, my. It would be nice if your comment software supported hyperlinks.
This little blog entry would be laughable if it wasn’t so predictable. Why would anybody care about their home state’s sovereignty? Why would anyone want to protect their home against the illegal, unconstitutional, unjustified, outrageously expensive, and throughly stupid actions of an intrusive federal government? Well, because they’re racist, of course!
Why, I can remember, like, a year ago, when the Left was screaming from the rooftops about how they were going to secede and unite with Canada and create a proper Socialist States of North America or some crap. The leaders of this movement was that Reddest of Red States, Vermont. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002076.html)
According to this 2008 Zogby poll (http://middleburyinstitute.org/zogbysecessionpoll2008.html), the groups that favor a right to Succession the most are Hispanics at 43% and African Americans at 40%. Among Whites it was a whopping 17%. Racist ass crackers! 32% of Mainline Liberals favor Succession, vs. only 17% of Mainline Conservatives. So by your own logic, if Secession= Racism, then Leftists are more racist than conservatives. This is true, it’s just that Leftists hate white people.
There are articles by Leftists favoring Federalism and Secession here
http://www.slate.com/id/2111942/
here
http://www.irregulartimes.com/secedenow.html
and here
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/good-magazine/vermont-most-likely-to-s_b_84820.html
But I’m sure that these are just, I dunno, a fluke.
I know that asking a Leftist like yourself to do about five minutes of research is like asking you to think for yourself and that is beyond your ability. So I will leave you with this: Your blog post is a falsehood, if you are aware of this you are a liar, if you are not you are a fool.
09/04/2009 at 6:32 pm
This from a paranoid delusional fuck whose email address is “armed_partisan.”
Take your meds and wait on the doctor, Matt.
Do you really believe that almost half of Americans want to secede from the most-free country in the history of the world?
If you do, just let your meds take effect. The bad people will go away, you mental defective.
09/08/2009 at 12:14 am
… and if you could garner enough attention span to read for any more than five minutes, you would also find out that the State Sovereignty movement has absolutely zero to do with succession. This is NOT a secessionist movement. This is a Constitution reaffirmation movement that seeks to force the federal power back into its circumscribed constitutional boundaries.
The states all came together in the beginning as sovereign entities, they created a contract that bound them to one another for their mutual security. Then they created a federal administrator, a central agency, made up of individuals from the states, that would represent the several states on the world stage, administer international commerce, and protect the common borders. The states created a central government.
They created it much like you would hire an attorney to represent your affairs. What has happened however, is the attorney has grown corrupt, he is now representing himself as you, he has taken possession of your money, your home, your car, your children call him daddy, and he is just now walking up the stairs to your wife in the bedroom to consummate his complete takeover of your life, your liberty, your property, and your family.
When you hired him however, in the contract were a couple of clauses that say the agent can never lawfully assume that kind of power — that would be the 9th and 10th Amendments. And the same contract contains a forcible removal clause, that would be the 2nd Amendment, and this very same contract was signed by all of your neighbors as well. Why would one separate from their neighbors at this point, since you will need them alongside you in your effort to uncover what this rogue agent has been up to and bring him to justice.
To secede from the union of states, would leave you vulnerable without the Constitution which was the agreement that bound the states. Secession would destroy this bond. The 9th and 10th Amendment State Sovereignty Resolutions, do not, nor can they claim secession, they claim constitutionally protected sovereignty, state sovereignty… therefore these resolutions cannot break the constitutional union of already sovereign states. It only severs the state from the lawlessness of the central government while retaining its constitutional tie.
The fact that the states are using the Constitution and Bill of Rights to affect this movement, and reaffirm within the wording of the resolutions, the convention ratified 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights, via the 9th and 10th amendments as the supreme law of the land, this alone should tell anyone who can read, that these resolutions are NOT resolutions for secession– this is using the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the way it was intended.
09/08/2009 at 9:08 am
Awfully touchy for a guy in Canada, but we’re glad to see you can cut and paste, dober.
Would you like to show us where anyone in the post mentioned secession?
09/17/2009 at 10:18 pm
Awfully short response from a guy that has enough IQ to to reverse lookup an IP address to a proxy server, Gilgamark.
In response to:
“Civil War – seems like I remember something about this one…didn’t secession lose that battle? ”
Got nothing to respond on my first post? guess not. I cut and paste because repeating myself to every historically uneducated simpleton isn’t worth taking more than 5 minutes to type it all over again – especially on such an obvious attempt to blog troll and bait.
Go learn your American history. You might actually be able to puzzle together that the political world is a little more complicated than your linear left right paradigm
bye
-dober