Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Once and Future Republic of Vermont
Washington Post Op-Ed ^ | April 1, 2007 | Ian Baldwin and Frank Bryan

Posted on 04/01/2007 2:11:31 AM PDT by Timeout

Vermont was once an independent republic, and it can be one again. We think the time to make that happen is now. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. government has grown too big, too corrupt and too aggressive toward the world, toward its own citizens and toward local democratic institutions. It has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans' fundamental freedoms.

Vermont did not join the Union to become part of an empire.

Some of us therefore seek permission to leave.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last
OK, I know the first instinct is to say "Be our guest...there's the door!". 2 fewer lib senators would be just one of the many reasons to cheer their secession.

BUT. Then I thought about it. And realized it wouldn't be long before Vermont was hosting visitors like Hugo Chavez and perhaps Ahmadinajad himself. They would relish the opportunity to go against American foreign policy and to create trouble wherever they could.

Sorry Vermont. I don't trust you enough to let you leave.

1 posted on 04/01/2007 2:11:32 AM PDT by Timeout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Timeout

At least the second independence thread today (there's also one about Scottish independence).


2 posted on 04/01/2007 2:13:33 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

if they begin and win a secession movement, can we invade and defeat them and really take over once and for all...?


3 posted on 04/01/2007 2:15:19 AM PDT by Methadras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Do the dems run Vermont? If so, why do they think they would get away from big government by secession.


4 posted on 04/01/2007 2:16:55 AM PDT by Stayingawayfromthedarkside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
If you drop the soap in Vermont....

you must kick it to New Hampshire to safely pick it up!

5 posted on 04/01/2007 2:17:27 AM PDT by Nitro (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Aw, let 'em leave. I can do w/o Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream... ;-p

Do you seriesly take this seriesly?


6 posted on 04/01/2007 2:25:40 AM PDT by Theresawithanh (Rudy? Hunter? McCain? Tancredo? Romney? Presenting WWF FR style.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
I live in Vermont, and happen to know the demographics of our state. The liberal socialist Moonbats who live in the three major cities of Vermont: Burlington, Rutland and Brattleboro, think they can paint the whole state from the narrow confines of their " Boulder East" perspective. They have about 55% of the vote in Vermont. They generally do not have any use for guns or the use of force.

The other 45% are patriots who live in the rural areas of Vermont, in the old tradition of Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain boys. We comprise the gun culture of Vermont , which has kept all gun laws , except for hunting, off the legislative books of our State. Vermonters can conceal carry as a matter of constitutional right. The moonbats would have a very difficult time pursuing their so called independence, for without the ability, culture, or attitude to fight, their musings on forming a Republic of Vermont are mere wet dreams.

Treasonous wimps! This writing is nothing but propaganda designed to whip the Moonbat base of Vermont into ever more erratic thinking, so that they will emerge as whacko whirling dervishes to demonstrate in front of the State House.

One call from their socialist leaders to go home and get their guns would see the lot of them vanish into obscurity, while the thread of the true Republic of Vermont continues to be woven into the fabric of our state by patriots, who are laughing their assess off at these silly little F*#ks.

7 posted on 04/01/2007 2:26:34 AM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
At least we wouldn't have to put up with Leahy or Sanders and Gov. Howard Dean would not be a US citizen any more, at least I would deport him to VT, lol. You know Vermont secession doesn't sound half bad!
8 posted on 04/01/2007 2:28:55 AM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Although obviously written by liberals, the article does point out that the the federal government has grow way out of proportion to what it was originally designed for, and that the tenth amendment of the Constitution has become practically vestigial.


9 posted on 04/01/2007 2:29:51 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Hey Jedi. can you give me the thread reference on Scottish Independence? Thanks bud.


10 posted on 04/01/2007 2:31:51 AM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

While the people you describe seem to be liberal, it isn't treasonous to consider secession from the Union and independence for a State. The states are.....states. They are not provinces. Although most states came about from territories which were not given the option of full independence from the Union, all the states are supposed to be sovereign. Otherwise, they'd be practically provinces or territories under direct control by Washington, D.C.


11 posted on 04/01/2007 2:36:30 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Here's the thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810043/posts.
12 posted on 04/01/2007 2:37:24 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
I agree with you Jed, but the moonbats do not have the will or ability to fight, and they would have to fight 45% of we Vermont patriots who would not allow it. Vermonts patriots would fight for independence IF the reasons were right.

The reasons given by the article are not those which would bring out the will to fight in Vermonst patriot population, which lives largely outside of the moonbat regulated cities of Brattleboro, Rutland and Burlington.

13 posted on 04/01/2007 2:40:37 AM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu

Thanks Jed, You're a peach.


14 posted on 04/01/2007 2:41:14 AM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Methadras
Not a bad idea. Of course, Vermont would no longer be a state, but a territory instead. That eliminates 2 Dem Senate seats and 1 socialist (Dem) House seat. It also frees them from federal income taxes...jeez, maybe I'd move there myself. :^)
15 posted on 04/01/2007 2:50:04 AM PDT by mkmensinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Interesting to think this follows the Army's switch back to the old blue uniform. If Vermont rebels, and considering most of the active duty force now enlists from the south, perhaps soon Bluecoats will be able to liberate great great great grandma's silverware and bring it back to Atlanta.


16 posted on 04/01/2007 2:50:47 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
Although most states came about from territories which were not given the option of full independence from the Union, all the states are supposed to be sovereign.

No. The people are supposed to be sovereign.

The Constitution exists because the Articles of Confederation, which set up a voluntary association of sovereign states, wasn't a sufficient basis for a new and growing nation. There was a consensus in favor of a stronger central government, though some Founders -- most notably Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry -- differed strongly and in no uncertain terms.

The balance of powers between the Feds and the states was a struggle from the beginning of the Republic, as was the question of whether a state that had joined could later opt out -- the latter wouldn't be answered until 1865, and then only by force.

17 posted on 04/01/2007 2:53:53 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mkmensinger
It also frees them from federal income taxes...

And there ya go...what will they use for money?
18 posted on 04/01/2007 3:00:34 AM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: stand watie

Pinging you to a Session Thread.


19 posted on 04/01/2007 3:02:09 AM PDT by Pontiac (Patriotism is the natural consequence of having a free mind in a free society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loboinok

"And there ya go...what will they use for money?"
Perhaps they'll revert to their original currency, but this time it will say: 'Please tread on me'.


20 posted on 04/01/2007 3:06:12 AM PDT by mkmensinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


21 posted on 04/01/2007 3:07:17 AM PDT by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mkmensinger

Maybe they should study up on Texas and see how that worked out for them(and the other ten for that matter).


22 posted on 04/01/2007 3:15:08 AM PDT by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
The states are supposed to be sovereign.

And so is the federal government.

And so are the people.

Just because one thing is sovereign, doesn't translate into only that one thing being sovereign (except for God, who is de facto the the only being who is completely and fully sovereign).

23 posted on 04/01/2007 3:25:09 AM PDT by Jedi Master Pikachu ( What is your take on Acts 15:20 (abstaining from blood) about eating meat? Could you freepmail?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: loboinok
Maybe they should study up on Texas and see how that worked out for them(and the other ten for that matter).

Exactly. The South was an agrarian economy (for the most part) whose only major export was cotton. They seceded from the Union at the time when the Industrial Revolution was just taking hold. Not a lot of foresight went into their decision.

The same would hold true for Vermont. What commodities do they control that the world would demand, yet aren't obtainable elsewhere? How would they set up an economy and government that could sustain itself in the world?

No, this is just a bunch of moonbats who have, again, shown their inability to think beyond their next pizza delivery.

25 posted on 04/01/2007 4:04:52 AM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: loboinok

Beat me to it. We (Virginia) tried this once.


26 posted on 04/01/2007 4:13:03 AM PDT by tgusa (Gun control: deep breath, sight alignment, squeeze the trigger .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: loboinok
Q: what will they use for money?

A: Cuban peso's

27 posted on 04/01/2007 4:14:03 AM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
I don't know if Ethan Allen is a great example to prove your thesis (that the armed, rural 45% of the state would never approve of independence). Note this summary from Wikipedia:

"Allen remained active in Vermont politics and was appointed general in the Army of Vermont. In 1778, Allen appeared before the Continental Congress on behalf of a claim by Vermont for recognition as an independent state. Due to the New York (and New Hampshire) claim on Vermont, Congress was reluctant to grant independent statehood to Vermont. Allen then negotiated with the governor of Canada between 1780 and 1783, in order to establish Vermont as a British province, in order to gain military protection for Vermonters. Because of this, the US charged him with treason; however, because the negotiations were demonstrably intended to force action on the Vermont case by the Continental Congress, the charge was never substantiated."
28 posted on 04/01/2007 4:16:32 AM PDT by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh
"I can do w/o Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream"

Ahhhhh, But!! What about Vermont Maid Maple Syrup??

Dry waffles are a bummer!

Do you want to be dependent upon FOREIGN maple syrup??

29 posted on 04/01/2007 4:21:33 AM PDT by Jimmy Valentine (DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

For an idiosyncratic, but interesting, view of how the US got its constitution, read:

http://www.demischools.org/philadelphia.pdf

Even if you don't buy into the theological prism through which the story is told, the footnotes, quotes, and narrative provide some fascinating details of a history that is not very well known, given that "the victors write the histories" that dominate what we have been taught in our formal educations.

As for Vermont, I wish them well, and leave them with the bumper sticker advice I saw on a car with a SC license plate several years ago: "If at first you don't secede, try, try again!"

Author's commentary:

I have just posted my latest book,

Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Origins of the U.S. Constitution.

The book is complete, except for the index. I am hoping that all of you will download it, print it out, read it, and spot typographical and other errors. Send these errors to me, so that I can make the corrections, print out a final version, and index it. I don’t want to do a second index.

The book’s thesis is, even for me, controversial. I provide 400+ pages of evidence that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in fact an illegal coup d’état. The participants knew this. This is why they took a lifetime oath of secrecy, walked upstairs to the second floor of the State House (so that eavesdroppers could not report what was going on), closed the doors, and hammered out the design for a replacement government. Newspaper reporters were excluded.

These men had been authorized by Congress and by several state legislatures only to revise the Articles of Confederation (1781), but not replace them. Knowing full well that they planned to replace the Articles with a new form of government, the leaders of the Convention nevertheless agreed to the terms laid down by the state legislatures, and then went off to Philadelphia to begin the first stage of a political revolution.

The story of this second American revolution is not told in the public school textbooks or in the "Christian America" seminars that are dear to the hearts of Christian home schoolers.

But what about Verna Hall’s book, A Christian History of the Constitution? Its documentation ends in 1774. It is also worth noting that the book was edited by her colleague, Joseph Montgomery, who was a Christian Scientist. Why did he edit it? Because Miss Hall was a Christian Scientist at the time she began compiling her book. I discuss this little-known background in my book.

In 1787, the states, with one exception (Rhode Island), were explicitly based on faith in God. In most cases, elected state representatives were required to swear their belief in the Trinity. The new Constitution made all such oaths illegal for Federal office (Article VI, Clause III). By means of the 14th Amendment (1868), the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this prohibition to state governments, completing the transformation in the case of Torcasso v. Watkins (1961).

I told this story 15 years ago. In response, the silence has been deafening. The "Christian America" promoters have steadfastly avoided any reference to my 1989 book. So, I decided to create a stand-alone volume, add more documentation, put a title on it that might break through this wall of silence, and give it away.


30 posted on 04/01/2007 4:21:48 AM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reg45

Q: what will they use for money?
A: Cuban peso's

= = = = = = = = = = =
Perhaps after repudiating their share of the Federal debt, along with the promised benefits, they can issue a gold-backed currency?


31 posted on 04/01/2007 4:24:33 AM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
Imagine how hysterical they'll be when Republicans win the White House again in '08.
32 posted on 04/01/2007 4:26:42 AM PDT by Vision ("Delight yourself with the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart." Psalm37:4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu
The states are supposed to be sovereign.

And so is the federal government.

And so are the people.

Fair enough. My point was that it's a constant question of balance, not a fight that will be won by one side or the other or a question that can be finally answered. I think we're on pretty much the same page there.

On most of these issues, I believe that never-ending debate and balancing and compromise are the way of the world. We're 230 years and counting into our American experiment, and it is still an experiment. We are tweaking the balance every hour of every day, in the Congress, in the courts, and on Free Republic.

The people who talk about a perfect end, a "final solution," a static and permanent state are the ones who scare me. They're Utopians. Utopians scare me, and the fact that they're Utopians worries me far more than whether they're left-Utopians or right-Utopians. Civilization is a journey, not a race, and there ain't no finish line.

33 posted on 04/01/2007 4:28:52 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

This section of the editorial sounds like plagiary from a Ron Paul campaign speech:

Today, however, Vermont no longer controls even its own National Guard, a domestic emergency force that is now employed in an imperial war 6,000 miles away. The 9/11 commission report says that "the American homeland is the planet." To defend this "homeland," the United States spends six times as much on its military as China, the next highest-spending nation, funding more than 730 military bases in more than 130 countries, abetted by more than 100 military space satellites and more than 100,000 seaborne battle-ready forces. This is the greatest military colossus ever forged.

Few heed George Washington's Farewell Address, which warned against the danger of a permanent large standing army that "can be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." Or that of a later general-become-president: "We must never let the weight of [the military-industrial complex] endanger our liberties or democratic processes." Dwight D. Eisenhower pointedly included the word "congressional" after "military-industrial" but allowed his advisers to excise it. That word completes a true description of the hidden threat to democracy in the United States.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Maybe Rep. Paul has a good chance of getting the electoral votes for Vermont? Does Vermont have a primary? Perhaps Ron Paul will become the Gene McCarthy of the 2008 campaign? I suppose the analogy breaks down, given that Bush cannot run again anyway.


34 posted on 04/01/2007 4:32:43 AM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
When you escape can you bring me some Maple Syrup?

Just a gallon....:-)

35 posted on 04/01/2007 4:36:31 AM PDT by Dog ( Residing somewhere in Eeyore's Gloomy Place...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dasboot
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Gee, that has a familiar ring. I'm pretty sure I've read it before.

If the people want to alter or abolish the current form of government, the mechanisms of constitutional convention and constitutional amendment are well-established.

If you think that it's time to replace Constitution 1.27 with Constitution 2.0, you first have to write it and then convince folks they should buy in.

Get to work.

36 posted on 04/01/2007 4:40:31 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
the latter wouldn't be answered until 1865, and then only by force.

Which arguably is not a constitutionally sanctioned answer.

37 posted on 04/01/2007 4:41:09 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DWPittelli
That history is undoubtedly true and very accurate. But the independence movement tradition of Vermont is based on the use of force, and the arming of the Vermont citizenry. Ethan Allen was a gun runner extraordinaire. His work was as a reaction to both New York and New Hampshire Land Surveyors who wanted to parcel out already occupied lands to land company speculators from those states.

Vermonts moonbat socialists are anything but the same kind of people. That is why their voting in town meetings, and all their posturing press is so laughable. In my town meeting I pointed this out to those who keep wanting to place a town meeting resolution of succession up for a vote, that its all about propaganda.

I pointed out that propaganda at a town meeting is a waste of time.I asked my town meeting of citizens, how many there were willing to take up arms for Vermont independence, and was met with an astounding silence, then laughter. That was the end of it.

38 posted on 04/01/2007 4:43:40 AM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
t has abandoned the democratic vision of its founders and eroded Americans' fundamental freedoms.

This is how one can tell these are socialist morons...they insert "democratic" for "republican."

We were never intended to be a democracy.

39 posted on 04/01/2007 4:45:31 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Methadras

Think purge. As in Vermont should be purged from the Union.

Lehey is an American enemy.


40 posted on 04/01/2007 4:50:14 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. Abby is my girl....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
The Federal Government levied huge tariffs on manufactured goods imported into the US to protect Northern interests. Cotton producers were not protected. If some Yankee mill owner could get cotton from Egypt cheaper than he could from Georgia, he could buy it with no tariff.

If Vermont 'rebels' we can invade them, steal everything that is not nailed down and burn the rest, then turn it into an agricultural colony.

41 posted on 04/01/2007 4:53:38 AM PDT by Comus (There is no honor in dying with your sword sheathed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
I believe that your theisi is correct. Certainly the dynamic between federalists and anti-federalists which drove so much of our early politics bears out what you say.

But the interesting question is that these men knew we needed a strong federal government if America was to survive in a world that still had France and Spain wanting to colonize the interior of the continent through the Mississipi River system. THe founding fathers could see that they were involved in an international race for the remainder of the continent and needed a strong central government to compete against Spain, France and Britain.

The established states did not much care about the issue, but wanted to maintain the economic strengths of their own societies. But they did not want to fight another war to maintain the original states rights under the Articles of Confederation.

42 posted on 04/01/2007 4:53:46 AM PDT by Candor7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Abundy
the latter wouldn't be answered until 1865, and then only by force.

Which arguably is not a constitutionally sanctioned answer.

Arguably, but you won't get much popular support to overturn that decision.

Any time a legal question becomes intractable, when it cannot be negotiated and one side or the other will reject the rulings of the courts, it comes down to force of arms. Sad, but true.

The Civil War was, IMHO, inevitable from the day the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. From 1776 to 1860, the politicians basically kicked the can down the road,

It was clear from the beginning that the question of slavery would be explosive. It was clear from the beginning to be a source of future conflict. It was clear that neither side could in good conscience yield, so it had to come to blows. A great many good and wise men tried their damnedest to push it aside, but they only managed to push it back.

43 posted on 04/01/2007 4:58:42 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek

Why doesn't Vermont form a State Guard, like 30 other states? Or are they afraid they'd have to draft liberals into it to staff it?


44 posted on 04/01/2007 5:15:45 AM PDT by GAB-1955 (being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Kingdom of Heaven....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Sure ~ they can be independent but they gotta' give all the land back first.


45 posted on 04/01/2007 5:27:44 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Not meaning any disrespect and only interested in my education;
What is the taxation situation there?
What is the state legislature like?
Is there an influx of new folks coming from N.Y. and the other overpopulated areas of the North?
How are they treated and accepted?
If there is an influx has it precipitiously upped the real estate prices?
I'd appreciate your input.


46 posted on 04/01/2007 5:42:37 AM PDT by Joe Boucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError

The balance of powers between the Feds and the states was a struggle from the beginning of the Republic, as was the question of whether a state that had joined could later opt out -- the latter wouldn't be answered until 1865, and then only by force.

The fact that the states were kept from leaving by force doesn't answer the question. Any sovereignty the states had before entering the Union was retained except what was written in the US Constitution. The right to leave was not given up and so the actions of the ferderal government to keep them from leaving was illegal.


47 posted on 04/01/2007 5:49:47 AM PDT by freedomfiter2 (Duncan Hunter '08 Pro family, pro life, pro second Amendment, not a control freak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Timeout
The proper thing to do with Vermont is to make the entire state a national historic site dedicated to the hippies.

This would mean the use of any technology developed after 1970 would be prohibited. Further, since hippies were too poor to own automobiles, their use would be severly restricted. The only ones allowed would be VW buses with flower-power paint jobs.

I doubt you could find too many existing but that's OK. Hippies were against cars.

Any sheep farms still up there would be exempted.

48 posted on 04/01/2007 5:50:11 AM PDT by Tribune7 (A bleeding heart does nothing but ruin the carpet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
Once the libs want to make their hatred of Bush so perfected they want Vermont to be independent once again, they will have to turn all their nationalist reasons for being fans of Abe Lincoln and his war against the South on their ear.

For libs, this will not be a problem, given how quickly those Dems who voted for going to war in Iraq have found reasons recently to say they really would have voted against it.

They probably have not thought this present passion all the way through. They don't realize what a can of nested hornets they will be opening up if they push this further.

49 posted on 04/01/2007 5:59:26 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Timeout

Whoa, wait a minute. I thought this issue was settled back in the 1860's when Idol Abraham wouldn't let the South secede and go in peace. Maybe W ought to declare military law in VT and arrest/imprison a bunch of politicians, newspaper editors/publishers, and common folks, and end these thoughts of secession once and for all. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


50 posted on 04/01/2007 6:02:35 AM PDT by izzatzo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson