• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Chuck Norris Calls for Revolution

Usually, when Chuck Norris speaks, the world listens.  But this apparently does not hold true for when he writes columns for WorldNetDaily and goes on the Glenn Beck show — in which it takes a couple days for anyone to notice.

Ron Moore, for the DC Examiner:

The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution. During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.” The martial artist/actor/activist claims that Texas was never formally a part of the United States in the first place and that if rebellion is to come through secession Texas would lead the way.

Today in his syndicated column on WorldNetDaily Norris reiterates the point: “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”

If Chuck’s not a citizen of the United States, by virtue of having been born in Texas, wouldn’t that give him something in common with Obama, who, as everyone knows, is actually a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia or Hawaii or someplace not American?

Also, he seems to be violating several of the tenets of Chun Kuk Do here, notably numbers 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9.

    4. I will look for the good in all people and make them feel worthwhile.
    5. If I have nothing good to say about a person, I will say nothing.
    7. I will maintain an attitude of open-mindedness.
    8. I will maintain respect for those in authority and demonstrate this respect at all times.
    9. I will always remain loyal to God, my country, family and my friends.

He’s doing well, though, on number 10:

    10. I will remain highly goal-oriented throughout my life because that positive attitude helps my family, my country and myself.

Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch apparently thinks Norris is a great source of intelligence and is taking this quite seriously:

[L]ess than two months into the Obama administration, right-wingers are stocking the basement pantry, piling up the shotguns and organizing “cells,” all with the help of a talk-show host who coincidentially became unhinged after he drove down the ratings at CNN Headline News, something that most people didn’t think was possible. There’s a lot to hash out in this country over the next few years but it’s becoming more and more clear who respects the Constitution, and who does not.

Or, maybe, this is just a frustrated martial artist and action movie star with some unusual thoughts running around his head?

Story via memeorandum.  Image:  PlatypusComix.

Related Posts:

About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway, an associate professor of security studies at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. He has a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter.

Comments

  1. sam says:

    Yeah, well, as a political theorist, Chuck is a pretty good exercise machine salesman.

    If Chuck’s not a citizen of the United States, by virtue of having been born in Texas, wouldn’t that give him something in common with Obama, who, as everyone knows, is actually a citizen of Kenya or Indonesia or Hawaii or someplace not American?

    Go to the WND main news page for the very latest breathless revelations on this burning topic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. Hoodlumman says:

    James, you’re upsetting Chuck. You wouldn’t like Chuck when he’s angry.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. PD Shaw says:

    How long until Obama appoints Chuck to be the leader of the Republican party?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. sam says:

    How long until Obama appoints Chuck to be the leader of the Republican party?

    Man, that would be a cage match worth seeing. The Fox vs. The Hedgehog. Chuck, with his martial arts training, would be the fox in the match, while Rush, having only one move–sitting on his opponent–would be the hedgehog. The popcorn futures market would skyrocket.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Moonage says:

    Not so sure about this post James. Chuck quotes the Founding Fathers to make his point, you quote the DC Examiner to make yours.

    Just sayin…….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    Or, maybe, this is just a frustrated martial artist and action movie star with some unusual thoughts running around his head?

    What next? Before long, some other nut will call for a tea party that everyone can laugh at too.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Polimom says:

    Interestingly, Chucky seems to have been born in Oklahoma rather than Texas.

    There’s probably something deeply meaningful about that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. Alex Knapp says:

    By urging military officers to disobey Obama, isn’t Chuck Norris suborning treason? I’m fuzzy on my treason law.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. Bruce Lee says:

    Not that I take Chuck that seriously, but it does raise an interesting question. How far do things have to deteriorate such that civil war would occur again in this country? I’m not sure we’re even close to that point, but where is that break point in theory?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Anderson says:

    George Washington advised, “The great rule of conduct in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations [and] having with them as little political connection as possible.” Yet the Obama administration just pledged $900 million in U.S. taxpayer-funded aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority.

    Norris doubtless cited Washington’s words when he vehemently opposed the Iraq war.

    Thomas Jefferson counseled us, “We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.” Yet the Feds have just skyrocketed our national deficit and debt by trillions of dollars, and it plans much more fiscal expansion with few expectations of resistance.

    This is why Norris opposed the Bush tax cuts and the simultaneous deficit spending.

    I’m sure the internet is replete with evidence of Norris’s strong stands on those issues from 2002 to 2008.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Hoodlumman says:

    I’d think that a second civil war would be virtually improbable. There will always be people who talk about it but how bad is it really?

    I’d say the worst it would get would be if the government starting confiscating guns door to door. You’d probably see the most bloodshed in that scenario.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. Moonage says:

    I’m not sure we’re even close to that point, but where is that break point in theory?

    In theory, it could be any number of things. The most likely scenario I think would be basically the same situation that prompted the first Civil War. The federal government started passing laws the severely harmed a collection of states who then felt they had no recourse but to secede in order to survive. There have been many instances where individual rights have been usurped without the states themselves resorting to secession. In the case of Obama, I see issues with individual rights all over the place. However, his trade-off so far has been bribing the states with cash. So, I don’t really expect a push by any state government to secede ( revolt, yes, secede, no ). However, I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see uprisings if he continues to clamp down on individual Constitutional Rights.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Alex Knapp says:

    In theory, it could be any number of things. The most likely scenario I think would be basically the same situation that prompted the first Civil War. The federal government started passing laws the severely harmed a collection of states‘ ability to keep people enslaved who then felt they had no recourse but to secede in order to survive maintain racial supremacy.

    Edited for historical accuracy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Michael says:

    Edited for personal opinion.

    Fixed that for you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Brian Knapp says:

    Isn’t threatening revolution by way of separatist militias just the conservative equivalent to “moving to Canada”.

    I guess the only difference is that we don’t want revolution but we could care less if Alec Baldwin lived in Toronto.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Michael says:

    Isn’t threatening revolution by way of separatist militias just the conservative equivalent to “moving to Canada”.

    Only if moving to Canada held out the possibility of you intentionally killing fellow Americans in the process. Otherwise they’re pretty different.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. odograph says:

    I use a little iGoogle box to track OTB, which shows headlines only. “Chuck Norris Calls for Revolution” has to be one of the best ever.

    The story itself is of course a little sad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Bithead says:

    By urging military officers to disobey Obama, isn’t Chuck Norris suborning treason? I’m fuzzy on my treason law.

    That’s OK. So is Obama.

    This is why Norris opposed the Bush tax cuts and the simultaneous deficit spending.

    So, you’re going to go on complaining about the ant in the room while ignoring the hippo?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Michael says:

    That’s OK. So is Obama.

    I’m pretty sure Obama isn’t urging military officers to disobey his orders. You must have meant something else, something that makes more sense perhaps.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. Wayne says:

    Moving to Canada to avoid military service is shirking one responsibility. Fighting for your rights is not.

    There isn’t any law that says that a state can’t secede. Especially Texas since it was put into the agreement when they became a state. Some think the U.S. Civil War made an imply law in that matter but at the time the North didn’t declare war on the South because they secede but because the South fired on them.

    There has been increasing talk in the Midwest and South about seceding. Many feel that Blue States values and their desired change in Government is becoming incompatible with Red state value and ideas of government. Secession is possible alternative to open violence. It is possible to secede without violence and if the Blue states use violence then it is on their heads.

    Many consider those changing our Government into a socialist one as treason while considering those who try to uphold our traditions and values as patriots. So the use of the term treason and patriotic is pretty subjective. I don’t consider putting up with a corrupt government and those who corrupt the process as patriotic, including using lawyer up slick tactics to take away state rights which is counter to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Some may.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Dyre42 says:

    “Interestingly, Chucky seems to have been born in Oklahoma rather than Texas.

    There’s probably something deeply meaningful about that.”

    Overcompensating perhaps?

    What may be most telling is that Norris thinks that those who would vote for President of Texas would vote for a non-native let alone an Okie.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Franklin says:

    Norris and his good buddy McVeigh can have Texas, I really don’t care. As long as we maintain free trade with this new country, all will be fine.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. E.D. Kain says:

    Good lord. I know celebrities are generally crazy and arrogant but most of them at least don’t harbor an obsession for guns and violent revolution. Apparently not so, Chuck Norris…wow.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Bithead says:

    I’m pretty sure Obama isn’t urging military officers to disobey his orders. You must have meant something else, something that makes more sense perhaps.

    Sit back and wait a while.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. RWB says:

    Isn’t calling on troops to mutiny during time of war treason? Let’s ship this guy to Guantanamo with the rest of the terrorists.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. DC Loser says:

    I don’t consider putting up with a corrupt government and those who corrupt the process as patriotic, including using lawyer up slick tactics to take away state rights which is counter to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Some may.

    Wayne, I fully concur with your assessment of the Bush administration.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Michael says:

    Moving to Canada to avoid military service is shirking one responsibility.

    Yeah, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about people who threatened to move to Canada because they didn’t like the democratically elected government. Chuck Norris is instead advocating the violent overthrow of that democratically elected government.

    There isn’t any law that says that a state can’t secede.

    It’s kind of implied in the Constitution.

    at the time the North didn’t declare war on the South because they secede but because the South fired on them.

    That’s because the North didn’t recognize the secession, so until the South opened fire on them, they weren’t technically in rebellion.

    Many feel that Blue States values and their desired change in Government is becoming incompatible with Red state value and ideas of government.

    Which is why those Red states have representation in the Federal government, so that those concerns can be put to a democratic vote.

    Many consider those changing our Government into a socialist one as treason while considering those who try to uphold our traditions and values as patriots. So the use of the term treason and patriotic is pretty subjective.

    While you’re free to warp the definition of “patriot” to whatever suites your needs, the constitution has a very specific definition for “treason”, and even outright socialism doesn’t cut it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. WR says:

    Ah, the right wing mindset:

    Criticizing a Republican president during a war: Treason.

    Advocating armed rebellion and secession againt a legally elected Democratic president: Patriotism.

    Special bonus points to the gentleman above who is still insisting that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Can’t wait until he starts telling us that slaves were really happy to be property until that darned Lincoln insisted on freeing them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Moonage says:

    Edited for historical accuracy.

    I would accept that if it were indeed entirely accurate. The slavery issue wasn’t addressed directly until after the Civil War started.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

    Initially Lincoln’s proposals allowed for slave states to have slaves, new states could not ( Missouri Compromise ). It was the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the feds subsequent reactions to the issues that prompted South Carolina to give up on the federal government along with election of Lincoln. The feds changed the rules for Nebraska and they submitted a charter that would allow slavery ( to build the railroads ), Congress denied it. They then submitted a charter that abolished slavery, Congress allowed it. This created a war in Nebraska-Kansas that the federal government refused to address. The bigger picture was although the feds assured state sovereignty, the actions of Congress indicated otherwise. The result was a war. Additionally, the government was allowing free states to harbor the South’s assets without any recourse for the owner of those assets. It wasn’t that they completely opposed freeing the slaves, the financial ramifications of the issue was completely ignored. Eventually, the slaves were freed without any financial considerations for either the landowner or the slave, creating a culture of impoverished people that wouldn’t be addressed for nearly 100 years.

    So, you can strip out all the bigger factors and call it racism if you want, that was just a symptom of the bigger picture of states’ rights. As I noted in the original comment, no sympton will cause a state to secede. However, if that state feels it has no rights within the federal government and its survival is threatened because of that, they might secede. Keep it on topic next time please.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Michael says:

    Special bonus points to the gentleman above who is still insisting that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

    And which kind gentleman would that be?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Good thing Huckabee didn’t win, huh?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Moonage says:

    Special bonus points to the gentleman above who is still insisting that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. Can’t wait until he starts telling us that slaves were really happy to be property until that darned Lincoln insisted on freeing them.

    Care to enlighten us on your version of history so that our great country won’t make the same mistake again?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Michael says:

    Good thing Huckabee didn’t win, huh?

    Well, yeah, but what does that have to do with this thread?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Moonage says:

    Well, yeah, but what does that have to do with this thread?

    Chuck very openly supported Huckabee during the primaries. The assumption would be that he would have gotten a cabinet position if Huckabee had won. THEN, his opinions would actually mean something.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Rick DeMent says:

    The south succeeded ostensibly because their “states rights” were being co-opted by the federal government particularly where certain economic policies were concerned. Among these issues were tariffs that protected manufactured goods and the status of the south’s involuntary labor force. What is striking is that the only issue that the south was willing to get into a shooting war over was the aforementioned involuntary labor force.

    Oh and off topic … anyone make a donation yet to SarahPAC yet?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. Michael says:

    Chuck very openly supported Huckabee during the primaries. The assumption would be that he would have gotten a cabinet position if Huckabee had won. THEN, his opinions would actually mean something.

    Oh right, I had forgotten about that, heh. Huckabee never struck me as an idiot though, so I doubt a cabinet position would have happened.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. RetiredEdutator says:

    Thanks Moonage for the follow up I was going to point out the historical facts about the civil war and the emancipation proclamation but you beat me to it. It’s dreadful the poor job educators do today with historical facts. Too many opinions and not enough facts.

    Of course there is a whole segment of today’s society that has the opinion, “Don’t cloud the issue with facts”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Wayne says:

    “It’s kind of implied in the Constitution.”

    “Kind of” please, show me where in the US Constitution where it is implied.
    “Red states have representation in the Federal government”

    One that doesn’t address the differences between red and blue state. Two Cuba voted Castro in so what does that say about elected government. Three the US was set up as a Republic not a Democracy and Constitution was originally design for a weak Federal government and to protect State and Individual rights. All of which our so call representative Government has warp. Also the amount of legislation from the bench has corrupted our system. Having a representative does not mean that your concerns get address. If that was the case, the creation of the U.N. would have resulted in world peace and prosperity.

    U.S. Constitution – Article 3 Section 3 Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

    Seceding is not declaring war on the rest of the states nor is it giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Unlike what many Democrats and liberals have done in the past.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. Alex Knapp says:

    “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
    – Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States of America

    More primary Confederate sources placing the cause of secession as slavery here:

    http://hereticalideas.com/blog/?p=3328

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. sam says:

    The Confederate Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 3:

    The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States [emphasis ed.].

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. As I recall from my reading, it had more to do with economics than human rights. Slavery was on its way out it in the US as uneconomical back in the 18th century until Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin, which made slavery economically feasible again, at least by those who believed it was ok to enslave a people to further their own economic interests, of course.

    The South’s desire to hold on to their “peculiar institution” was driven by their primarily agrarian economy and they felt they had to hold on to it are they would be overwhelmed by the more industrialized North. As more states were added, the South saw themselves losing their ability to control their own affairs slipping away as both the House and the Senate were going to have enough votes to do what they wanted, regardless of the previous understandings of what the federal republic meant to the individual states. As Shelby Foote noted, the states never would have entered the Union if they thought they couldn’t get back out of it. As a bit of an aside, some of the South’s complaints about outside agitators and the federal government in the 1960′s were the lingering strange echoes of the same sentiments in the 1860′s, but I digress.

    So, yes, slavery was one of the primary causes of the US civil war, but it is, dare I say it, a little more nuanced than claiming that the US Civil War was all about slavery. If you have read much pre-1860 history then you have to know that President Lincoln would have had a very difficult time raising an army to emancipate the slaves rather than to restore the Union, though both goals eventually became synonymous. President Lincoln was rather clear about this leading up to the war and in the early days of the war. Similarly, if one is to take Robert E. Lee at his word, he was fighting for his state, not for the continuation of slavery.

    Northern public opinion had to be turned against the South very strongly to make abolition mainstream before the Emancipation Proclamation could be issued, and the casualty lists certainly helped to do that. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation it wasn’t until after the war with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution that slavery was finally abolished in the United States. There were still slaves in the border states after the US Civil War ended that were not freed until December 1865. This fact alone works against the idea that the US Civil War was only about slavery.

    I write this certainly not to defend slavery, the old South, or the more ideological of the states’ rights advocates, but only to correct the revisionism that ascribes the US Civil War as being only about freeing the slaves. To say that some members of the old South believed they were defending their concept of a democratic republic in no way absolves them of the stain of slavery, but neither does the stain of slavery invalidate the perception that their concept of a free association of states in a democratic republic died with their defeat.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. Moonage says:

    OK, you seem really hung on that one issue. As stated repeatedly now, in order to keep things in context of what this post is discussing, it was AN issue. It was a BIG issue. But, it was not the ULTIMATE issue. The ULTIMATE issue that caused the guns to be fired had to be something else since the slavery issue had been regulated since 1850 wouldn’t you think? When Lincoln was elected, NOTHING CHANGED. He didn’t make the Emancipation Proclcamation until a year or two AFTER THE CIVIL WAR started.

    So, being as nothing else changed in regards to slavery before and after the war started, how can you stick with the notion it was the only issue that caused this to happen?

    And for what it’s worth, I don’t live in a Confederate state. I do however, live in a state that was devastated by the war. As such, our history is affected by all sides of the issue. People have completely forgotten about the other wars that were going on at the time that added to the situation as well. It was two of these other wars that aggravated the situation to the point where South Carolina and others felt threatened by the North.

    Now, can you name even one of those other “wars”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. Wayne says:

    The US Civil War like most wars have many underlining causes. The official cause is usually considered the final event\cause that result in open hostility. For example WWII the US the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor was the cause for U.S. getting “into” the war. Now the US was supplying China, Russia and Britain with war supplies long before that. Many entities in US were wanting and not wanting to go war before that but the war crowd didn’t have enough justification according to the people to do so.

    Similar with the Civil war. There were many different tensions between the North and the South. It got to the point where the South seceded. War wasn’t declared then either. Lincoln didn’t want them to secede but that wasn’t a valid enough reason to go to war. Only after the Fort Sumter incident was there a valid enough excuse for the North to declare war. Lincoln stating that the South fired upon the North and declared war on all of the seceded state. If the North truly didn’t recognize the South seceding then there was no valid reason fire upon anyone but those that were involve at Fort Sumter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. Grewgills says:

    Edited for personal opinion.

    Fixed that for you.

    Michael, do you really think that slavery and the balance of free states and slave states was not the primary driver behind the civil war, or that stating so is merely opinion rather than historical fact?
    I expect that from some here, not from you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. sam says:

    Since we’re talking about the origins of the civil war, I’ll share a thought I had. I was watching some TV show that featured the Australian art critic Robert Hughes. The topic was American art and regionalism. I was just barely paying attention when he said something that made me sit up: Southern culture, he said, was primarily created by dispossessed cavaliers, those who had been on the losing side of the English Civil war. It then occurred to me that, in a sense, Northern culture had been created by the winning side of the English Civil war–the Puritans, etc. So perhaps, insofar as we attend to the cultural roots of the American Civil War, it was the final act of the English Civil War.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. Michael says:

    Michael, do you really think that slavery and the balance of free states and slave states was not the primary driver behind the civil war, or that stating so is merely opinion rather than historical fact?

    No, I believe that Alex’s edit added no more historical accuracy that the original contained, it merely highlighted Alex’s personal opinion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. Dantheman says:

    sam @ 1:45 PM,

    What you said is fairly close to Kevin Phillips’ The Cousins War, which basically posits that the English Civil War, the American Revolution and the American Civil War were all one long conflict.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  48. Billy says:
    By urging military officers to disobey Obama, isn’t Chuck Norris suborning treason? I’m fuzzy on my treason law.

    That’s OK. So is Obama.

    I’m pretty sure Obama isn’t urging military officers to disobey his orders. You must have meant something else, something that makes more sense perhaps.

    Sit back and wait a while.

    I just wanted to point this out for posterity. Bithead manages to make Chuck Norris and the Southern apologists look positively well-reasoned by comparison. Why does anyone here address Bithead directly anymore? Seriously, a one year old child has more cogent arguments (in no small part because such child is largely unable to communicate using language).

    Just stop. Please.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  49. Moonage says:

    No, I believe that Alex’s edit added no more historical accuracy that the original contained, it merely highlighted Alex’s personal opinion.

    And, some historical accuracy has been given. Slavery didn’t CAUSE the Civil War, the attack on Fort Sumter did.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter

    Lincoln accepted the secession, that is not what caused the war. The South demanded the Union abandon their fort in South Carolina and the Union ignored them. Instead, they abandoned Fort Moultire and moved to Fort Sumter. After being repeatedly ignored, and seeing Union troops occupy and fortify Fort Sumter, the South attacked. That is what started the Civil War. South Carolina’s fear of the Union troops was bolstered by the actions of the federal government in Nebraska and Kansas.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

    That was already a civil war in progress by the time THE Civil War broke out in South Carolina. Things just weren’t peachy keen in the US when the Civil War broke out, and it had a lot more issues going on than one simple word can summarize.

    In context to this thread, which I’ve tried to keep it, is that no one issue then, or now, will cause a state to secede no matter how over-reaching the president or Congress may attempt. However, if a state feels their very survival is at stake BECAUSE of the federal government, as it did then, THEN you might see a secession.

    And, I just don’t see that happening any time soon since states today are so incredibly inter-twined with the federal government.

    That wasn’t the least bit true in 1860.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  50. Michael says:

    “Kind of” please, show me where in the US Constitution where it is implied.

    Article 6.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  51. Rick Almeida says:

    Southern culture, he said, was primarily created by dispossessed cavaliers, those who had been on the losing side of the English Civil war.

    When I was prepping my Southern Politics class this past summer, I read a great book on the history of Southern identity; I wish I could find the citation.

    Anyway, it had a whole multi-chapter arc on what the author called the “Cavalier myth.” It was pretty clear from his work that the whole idea of the South being based in displaced Cavaliers was an ad hoc creation after, I think, reconstruction.

    Also, Charles Reagan Wilson’s _Myth, Manners, and Memory_ has a chapter on the Cavalier Myth, but I have not read it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  52. Michael says:

    he US was set up as a Republic not a Democracy and Constitution was originally design for a weak Federal government and to protect State and Individual rights.

    The federal government has a mostly Republican form, but within congress laws are passed democratically. Also, the Constitution was originally designed to create a much stronger Federal government than existed before it, and stripped many of the State’s rights in the process.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  53. Rick Almeida says:

    Sorry for the multi post. The book I referenced above is: _Away Down South: A History of Southern Identity_ by James C. Cobb, and it is excellent.

    Also, is anyone seriously saying that a republic is not a democratic form of government? Seriously?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  54. sam says:

    Rick, I found this:

    Reclaiming the American Farmer: The Reinvention of a Regional Mythology in Twentieth-Century Southern Writing, Southern Quarterly ,Fall 2006 by Conlogue, William

    Reclaiming the American Farmer: The Reinvention of a Regional Mythology in Twentieth-Century Southern Writing. By Mary Weaks-Baxter. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2006. 200 pp. Cloth: $42.95, ISBN: 0-8071-3129-6.)

    In Reclaiming the American Farmer, Mary Weaks-Baxter argues that writers of the Southern Literary Renaissance (1900-1960) replaced the myth of the cavalier, which had dominated southern literature since before the Civil War, with the myth of the yeoman farmer. She goes so far as to assert that the yeoman myth became the “driving force in the literature of the [twentieth] century” in the South (11). In rediscovering Thomas Jefferson’s definition of the nation as a country populated by small freeholders, writers opened a space in southern literature to address in fresh ways issues of race, class, and gender.

    If it was a myth, it seems, according to this writer, one created by Southerners themselves. But more importantly, even it was a myth, it was one taken to heart by its proponents and informed their culture.

    As for Cobb, I did find this:

    James C. Cobb on the New Faces of Southern Identity

    As Cobb demonstrates, the legend of the aristocratic Cavalier origins of southern planter society was nurtured by both northern and southern writers, only to be challenged by abolitionist critics, black and white. After the Civil War, defeated and embittered southern whites incorporated the Cavalier myth into the cult of the “Lost Cause,” which supplied the emotional energy for their determined crusade to rejoin the Union on their own terms.

    Thanks for the tip.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  55. Bithead says:

    I just wanted to point this out for posterity. Bithead manages to make Chuck Norris and the Southern apologists look positively well-reasoned by comparison.

    So, any suggestion that Obama has already acted outside the bounds of the Constitution, is to be considered ‘unreasonable’?

    I’ll take that under advisement.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. We’re really going to go to Wikipedia to prove that the Civil War wasn’t fundamentally about slavery?

    Wowie.

    And republican government does not mean federalism. One can have republican government with a strong central government, and one with a weak central government. And if one doubts that the founders viewed the situation otherwise, I would suggest that one read Federalist #39 for a definition of republic as Madison understood the term and then go to the second half of Federalist #51 where Madison writes about the “compound republic” of the Constitution, which encompasses both the idea of a republic and the idea of what we now call “federalism.” If the two were the same, there would be no need to delineate a “single republic” from a “compound republic”.

    And back to the Civil War and the claim that it was a war over “states’ rights”–the thing is, what “right” was being fought over? It was the right to hold slaves and about the expansion of slavery into western territories–and that tension had been brewing well before Fort Sumnter.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. Michael says:

    So, any suggestion that Obama has already acted outside the bounds of the Constitution, is to be considered ‘unreasonable’?

    Yes, unless you have some evidence to back it up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  58. Moonage says:

    Also, is anyone seriously saying that a republic is not a democratic form of government? Seriously?

    The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a republic. It was however, not a democracy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  59. Moonage says:

    And back to the Civil War and the claim that it was a war over “states’ rights”–the thing is, what “right” was being fought over? It was the right to hold slaves and about the expansion of slavery into western territories–and that tension had been brewing well before Fort Sumnter.

    I think the “right” was self-determination, not specific to slavery. As noted before, the states had already seceded. there was no war.

    However, the Union refused to leave South Carolina at Fort Sumter.

    Occupation was the issue at this point, not slavery.

    That’s what the started the war itself.

    You all trying to lump the entire thing on racism or slavery are making it sound like civil war’s getting ready to break out now since the abortion and gay marriage issues are so contentious now and we just can’t come to a group hug and resolve it.

    Now, if the feds send troops into your state to FORCE you to have/not have abortions, it’s a totally different story now isn’t it?

    This thread is supposed to be about what the chances are of civil war/secession. People not willing to research the last Civil War would say the chances are pretty good since the last secessions were over one single simple issue. Those who do appreciate the circumstances of the last civil war will say we’re not even remotely close, yet. We came much closer in the late ’60′s when the National Guard was called up to deal with domestic issues. That was dangerous. When you see troops moving within the US to deal with US issues, then this topic will be a lot more meaningful.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  60. Grewgills says:

    Slavery didn’t CAUSE the Civil War, the attack on Fort Sumter did.

    Right, and taxation without representation did not cause the American Revolutionary War, the attempted seizure of munitions by the British at Concord did or perhaps it was the first shot fired by the minute men.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  61. anjin-san says:

    Yes, unless you have some evidence to back it up.

    Don’t hold your breath…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  62. Bithead says:

    Yes, unless you have some evidence to back it up.

    Oh, for pity’s sake.
    Apparently, you missed the discussion right here on OTB…

    Byrd complained in a letter to the president that his decision to create White House offices on health care reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change “can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

    Don’t hold your breath..

    Once again, Anjin, your mouth is writing bad checks.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  63. Rick Almeida says:

    Sam,

    “If it was a myth, it seems, according to this writer, one created by Southerners themselves. But more importantly, even it was a myth, it was one taken to heart by its proponents and informed their culture.”

    You’re 100% right on both counts; I didn’t mean to imply the contrary. You should check out the Cobb book, I think you will find it very interesting.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  64. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a republic. It was however, not a democracy.

    Well, it was called a republic, but it was hardly a republic by any standard definition. Likewise the People’s Republic of China. For that matter, East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, just for good measure, but it was neither Democratic nor a Republic.

    Indeed, Madison made the argument in Federalist 39 (linked above) that lots of places go by the name of republic, but aren’t actually republics.

    But, of course, if one is willing to argue that the main issue at the heart of the civil war was something other than slavery, then what’s the point arguing about the definition of much of anything.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  65. Wayne says:

    What part of Article 6 prevents a state from seceding?

    “but within congress laws are passed democratically. “

    Not as it applies to the Constitution. It is suppose to take much more difficult process to change the Constitution not a simple majority. Unfortunately, people have found slick procedure to circumvent the tougher standards including finding enough Judges to legislate from the bench.

    “Also, the Constitution was originally designed to create a much stronger Federal government than existed before I”

    True because the original was too weak to function, however the intent was still to have as weak as federal government as possible but still function. Just because something is stronger than something else doesn’t make it strong.

    Secession won’t happen over any one issue but an accumulation of issues. When enough feel that they don’t have enough say on issues and feel the county has gone far enough away from their ideas then they will succeed and\or revolt.

    It reminds me of a married couple I knew where the husband stated “she has 49% voting rights but I have 51%” and he ruled the household like a tyrant and never gave her much consideration. Then he wonder why she lift him after she had enough of his B.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  66. tom p says:

    Ooookaaaayyy….

    The call by some right wing leaders for rebellion and for the military to refuse the commander in chief’s orders is joined by Chuck Norris who claims that thousands of right wing cell groups have organized and are ready for a second American Revolution.

    Chuck Norris is an idiot.

    During an appearance on the Glen Beck radio show

    And proves it…

    he promised that if things get any worse from his point of view he may “run for president of Texas.”

    Hey Chuck, here’s a hint, why don’t you run for most irrelevant person in the world?

    He even said: “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”

    HEY CHUCK!!! ARE YOU LISTENING??? (I doubt it) WHERE IN THE F*CK HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST 7 YEARS??? WHEN REAL PATRIOTS WERE NEEDED???

    You know, when little things like the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments were unilaterally suspended? You know Chuck, like that little thing you are exercising right now called “Freedom of Speech”? HEY CHUCK… WAKE UP… AS of Oct 23, 2003 YOU DIDN’T HAVE IT…

    “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”

    But as of Jan 15, 2009 it was, miraculously, returnded. Chuck, SHUT THE F**K UP… before some idiot actually takes you serious and does something really stupid, and gets themselves killed on the altar of your ego.

    Many consider those changing our Government into a socialist one as treason while considering those who try to uphold our traditions and values as patriots. So the use of the term treason and patriotic is pretty subjective.

    Wayne… here is a hint, you will not find either of the words “socialism” or “capatilism” in the constitution. The only thing “subjective” here is your interpretation of it.

    I don’t consider putting up with a corrupt government and those who corrupt the process as patriotic, including using lawyer up slick tactics to take away state rights which is counter to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. Some may.

    Wayne, Wayne, Wayne… #1: where have you been for the past 8 years? (you just described perfectly the Bush admin… except they were taking away YOUR rights)(as cited above… click and learn) #2: Have you actually read the Constitution? Methinks you confuse it with the “Articles of Confederation” which were replaced by the Constituion because the AoC didn’t work. The Constitution actually says:

    No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, etc etc…
    No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.”

    Now, some may quible about the meaning of this clause, or that clause, but, there is no mistaking the meaning of, “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress,…enter into any agreement or compact with another state…”

    You can try and try and try… but the meaning is pretty clear, and was quite well settled by a war, oh say… 145 yrs ago.

    Secession is possible alternative…

    For all of you who are still fighting the Civil War, I have a one word reply: LOSER. Get over it. It is done, it is over.

    There has been increasing talk in the Midwest and South about seceding.

    HA! Where do you live Wayne? I live in the heart of the Ozarks, and while I have heard more than a little grousing, I have heard NOTHING like that.

    Many feel that Blue States values and their desired change in Government is becoming incompatible with Red state value and ideas of government.

    Whose values? Come down here and listen to what people are really talking about….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  67. Bruce Lee says:

    Ok, so what one, two, or dozen lines does the government have to cross to trigger your inner-rebel? How much is too much before you go all Chuck Norris on the government?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  68. tom p says:

    HOLY F*CK!!! I am getting asthma just reading all the strawman arguements going on here!

    If you want to talk about what is a “democracy” or a “republic”…

    TALK ABOUT IT WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF US CONSTITUTION AND HISTORY!

    You people are nucking futs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  69. Wayne says:

    Tom P
    Talking about sounding nuts. You take the cake.

    “I have a one word reply: LOSER”

    Maybe it time for round two.

    “No state shall, without the consent of the Congress,…enter into any agreement or compact with another state…”

    Which means as long as a State is part of the United States they must follow those rules. It says nothing about once the state has entered in the agreement that the state cannot secede.

    http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm

    I not surprise you haven’t heard anything about succession. From the tone of your post, I doubt anyone would want to discuss anything with you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  70. anjin-san says:

    Byrd complained in a letter to the president

    For the second time in a few weeks, you have cited SEN BYRD to support an argument.

    Really bit. You just knocked Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason off the comedy throne…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  71. anjin-san says:

    I really have to hand it to you bit, you are sort of the Rocky Balboa of stupidity. No matter how many devastating blows reason, logic, and education land on you, you get up off the mat and keep swinging.

    So Byrd called the constitutionality of Obama’s acts into question…

    Byrd also voter for the stimulus bill. Can we assume that means you are a supporter of the stimulus as well bit? After all, you do seem to view Byrd as the senatorial version of a burning bush these days. Most of us see him as a very elderly gentleman who should have retired decades ago, but to you he is more, much more.

    I don’t know dude. Perhaps you just make outrageous statements because thats the only way you can get anyone to notice you. Or perhaps your brain is really occupied by 20% Michelle Malkin, 10% Robert Byrd, and 70% hard vacuum.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  72. I think the “right” was self-determination,

    And the point of contention–i.e., the topic that they wanted self-determination over, was slavery.

    If it wasn’t slavery, what was it? And provide a concrete issue, not an abstraction.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  73. Michael says:

    If it wasn’t slavery, what was it? And provide a concrete issue, not an abstraction.

    They also wanted to annex more of Mexico.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  74. Michael says:

    It says nothing about once the state has entered in the agreement that the state cannot secede.

    The Articles of Confederation did, and the Constitution never explicitly said that secession was now an option.

    But, going back to Article 6, the Constitution explicitly makes the States give up power to the Federal government. Secession is the act of taking that power back, it is explicitly unconstitutional.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  75. Michael says:

    Yes, unless you have some evidence to back it up.

    Oh, for pity’s sake.
    Apparently, you missed the discussion right here on OTB…

    The general consensus on that thread, by everyone but you it seems, was that Obama’s actions were not unconstitutional, but rather a delegation of existing Executive powers to poorly titled advisors.

    So, again, unless you have some evidence to back it up…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  76. Bithead says:

    The general consensus on that thread, by everyone but you it seems, was that Obama’s actions were not unconstitutional, but rather a delegation of existing Executive powers to poorly titled advisors.

    So, again, unless you have some evidence to back it up…

    The part of the point you two seem to be missing is where in the question you’re asked if it’s unreasonable to bring up the issue of the unconstituionality of Obama’s actions, not if the conclusions he drew were entirely accurate. Go back and read to confirm. One doesn’t equal the other, unless you’re simply looking for a means of attack.

    So, are we now to understand that both of you find Sheet Hood Boy’s comments unreasonable? That would be a first.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  77. Wayne says:

    “Constitution never explicitly said that secession was now an option”

    And the Constitution never explicitly said that secession was not now an option.

    “the Constitution explicitly makes the States give up power to the Federal government. Secession is the act of taking that power back”

    It also reserves Powers for the States. The Federal government has intruded on some of those powers therefore breaking the agreement. Therefore the States have a right to back out of that agreement if they choose and take back the power they gave to the Federal government. No treaty or agreement is irreversible.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  78. Michael says:

    The part of the point you two seem to be missing is where in the question you’re asked if it’s unreasonable to bring up the issue of the unconstituionality of Obama’s actions, not if the conclusions he drew were entirely accurate.

    To which I responded that it was in fact unreasonable, unless you had evidence. Conclusions didn’t even make it into the question at that point, if you have no evidence to support your accusation, then your accusation is unreasonable.

    Unless of course you think it’s reasonable for me to question your marital fidelity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  79. Michael says:

    And the Constitution never explicitly said that secession was not now an option.

    Secession not being an option was the status quo. It not being an option was implied throughout the Constitution. Many of the powers explicitly granted by the Constitution could only be possible if secession was not an option.

    Tell me where in the Constitution is is implied, assumed, or even hinted at, that secession was an option.

    It also reserves Powers for the States. The Federal government has intruded on some of those powers therefore breaking the agreement.

    Go tell that to a contract lawyer, they like jokes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  80. [...] that I want to be able to refer back to when the need arises. The proximate cause of the post was a comment thread over at OTB wherein one of the commenters made a statement I have seen before: one that conflates the concept [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  81. Wayne says:

    “It not being an option was implied throughout the Constitution”

    I have asked for examples and the ones given have come up wanting. Maybe you can find a better example.

    “Go tell that to a contract lawyer, they like jokes.”

    Contract lawyers should be quite aware of breaching of contracts. They make their living off of it.

    Are we to point of throwing insults now? Yep, if you can’t back your points up throw insults. Nice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  82. [...] by an OTB comment thread, Steven Taylor has written two essays questioning the use of the phrase “A Republic, Not a [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  83. Bithead says:

    To which I responded that it was in fact unreasonable, unless you had evidence

    Sheets Byrd for whatever else he is, has long been touted by the Dmeocrats as an expert in the doings of government and in the constitution. So, is this expert’s comments to be taken as evdience or not?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  84. Michael says:

    So, is this expert’s comments to be taken as evdience or not?

    No, because the comments made were made as statements of opinion, not statements of fact.

    If Stephen Hawking said that physics is fun, I wouldn’t call that evidence of anything, regardless of how much of an expert Hawking is in his field.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  85. Bithead says:

    So Byrd called the constitutionality of Obama’s acts into question…

    Yes, he did. But of course, that’s not the only place he faces such questions.

    An interesting article from Ronald D. Rotunda in the Chicago Tribune, this morning. The topic; THe laws surrounding the so-called ‘stimulus’.

    Because some governors might not accept the money, Congress added a unique provision, in subsection 1607(b): “If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.”

    If state law does not give the state legislature the right to bypass the governor, how can Congress just change that law? Where does Congress get the power to change a state constitution?


    It is unlikely that subsection (b) will survive constitutional challenge. Does that mean that the entire law is unconstitutional or only subsection (b)? That depends on whether Congress considered the entire bill to be a uniform whole, so that if one part must fall, all must fall. Or, did it want the courts to sever the unconstitutional part of the law and leave the remainder intact?

    It may seem silly to worry about such matters when we know that Congress was in such a hurry to enact this bill that a great many congressmen—perhaps all of them—did not have a chance to read all of it. But, the courts will still have to decide the severability issue and invalidate more than subsection (b).

    Rotunda is a professor at Chapman University’s School of Law. if there’s anyone on the planet who is capable of raising such questions it is he.

    The constitution issue, as he points out, is that of state’s rights. The issue there and he is protecting the people from the Federal government. Rotunda says, correctly:

    As Justice Hugo Black reminded us over 40 years ago, “The proceedings of the original Constitutional Convention show beyond all doubt that” the framers denied Congress “the power to veto or negat[e] state laws,” but that is exactly what subsection (b) does. To give Congress such power “distorts our constitutional structure of government.” But that is what subsection (b) does.

    With that in mind, we now have perhaps an interesting tie into a recent case in Vermont that was in the headlines recently, Wyeth v. Levine. (06-1249).

    In that case, we had a professional guitarist by the name of Diana Levine lose her arm because of improper administration of an anti-nausea drug. Of course Levine sued. The claim was that the drug company should be held liable for the incident, owing to lack of sufficient warning labels, according to the state’s standards. THe drug company, Wyeth, countered that their labeling already conformed to federal standards. The question then, because if the federal government had primacy in the matter. The Supreme court ruled they did not, and ruled for the plaintiff.

    The implication here is far wider, I think, and speaks loudly to the issue of states’ rights.

    And thereby, it speaks to the case of the ‘Stimulus’, as well. It speaks to the question of whether not the actions of Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats are in fact constitutional. I’m no lawyer, but if I had to make a semi educated guess to the matter I’d have to say to no, they were not, and I would have to conclude that the question of whether are not their actions were constitutional were eminently reasonable.

    Of course, you’ll go into denial, Anjin; you’re wired that way. Anything the liberal does is just fine by you, and there can never be any question of the legality of it. But apparetly, it’s more than just me you’regoing to have to argue with… and I wonder if you’re really up for it…
    Let’s find out.
    Now, Anjin… dance for us.
    A one and a two and a…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  86. [...] Chuck Norris Calls for Revolution (outsidethebeltway.com) [...]

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0