An Idiot Named Mike Thompson

Every once in a while, a right-wingnut article comes along so ripe for editorial rape that it would be a crime to let it pass.

Here is one such article, from a guy named Mike Thompson, a former chairman of the Florida Conservative Union. Take note of the disclaimer at the top — he doesn’t mean what he is saying, except that . . . you know . . . he kind of does mean it.

Declaration of Expulsion: A Modest Proposal – It’s Time to Reconfigure the United States by Mike Thompson

[From the author: This is an essay I’ve been working on for the past several weeks, updated moments ago with what appears to be Bush’s final number of victory states (31) once the nonsense of provisional votes in Ohio is overcome.

As an admitted "modest proposal" (a la Swift’s satiric story of the same name), it is nevertheless serious in pointing out the cancer that continues to threaten our body politic.]

Branded unconstitutional by President Abraham Lincoln, the South’s secession from the American Union ultimately sparked "The Civil War" (a name that was rejected by Southerners, who correctly called it "The War Between the States," for the South never sought to 1] seize the central government or 2] rule the other side, two requisites for a civil war).

You know that when a winger opens with the Civil War revisions, you are going to be in for a treat. And technically, the War Between the States had nothing — not a thing — to do with slavery per se. The War Between the States was about whether states possessed the sovereign right to permit some its citizens to own other non-citizens as chattel. But not about slavery. Nosiree.

No state may leave the Union without the other states’ approval, according to Lincoln’s doctrine–an assertion that ignores the Declaration of Independence, which was the vital basis for all 13 American colonies’ unilateral secession from the British Union eight decades earlier.

And since we’re rewriting the Civil War, we might as well pretend that a declaration addressed to the King is the same thing as a constitution which sets a framework of government.

Lincoln’s grotesque legal argument also disregards a state’s inherent right of secession which many scholars believe is found in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

But is it not true, Grasshopper, that if a state secedes from the United States, it is no longer protected by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution? (D’oh!)

Meantime, America has become just as divided as it was a century and a half ago, when it writhed in Brother-vs.-Brother War. Instead of wedge issues like slavery, federal subsidies for regional business, and high tariffs . . .

Oh, that’s all that Johnny Reb was talking about back then — federal subsidies for regional businesses, federal subsidies for regional businesses . . . like a damn broken record . . .

. . . society today is sundered by profound, insoluble Culture War conflicts (such as abortion and gay marriage) . . .

I prefer to call it the War Between Those Who Like Gallagher And Those Who Don’t . . .

. . . and debate about our role abroad (shall we remain the world’s leader, or become an unprincipled chump for the cabal of globalist sybarites who play endless word-games inside the United Nations and European Union sanctuaries?).

There’s nothing that gets be madder than globalist sybarites playing Boggle all night long!!!

For many decades, conservative citizens and like-minded political leaders (starting with President Calvin Coolidge) have been denigrated by the vilest of lies and characterizations from hordes of liberals who now won’t even admit that they are liberals–because the word connotes such moral stink and political silliness. As a class, liberals no longer are merely the vigorous opponents of the Right; they are spiteful enemies of civilization’s core decency and traditions.

That’s us all right — moral stink and political silliness to your core decency. Kinda like when Bugs Bunny leaps out of the whole and kisses Elmer Fudd smack on the lips. Only more so. By the way, how come they call liberals elitist?

Defamation, never envisioned by our Founding Fathers as being protected by the First Amendment, flourishes and passes today for acceptable political discourse. Movies, magazines, newspapers, radio/TV programs, plays, concerts, public schools, colleges, and most other public vehicles openly traffic in slander and libel. Hollywood salivated over the idea of placing another golden Oscar into Michael Moore’s fat hands, for his Fahrenheit 9/11 jeremiad, the most bogus, deceitful film documentary since Herr Hitler and Herr Goebbels gave propaganda a bad name.

Ah, I long for the days when propaganda had a good name, because it never ever contained things like slander or libel until those icky fat-handed Oscar-winning directors like Hitler came along.

When they tire of showering conservative victims with ideological mud, liberals promote the only other subjects with which they feel conversationally comfortable: Obscenity and sexual perversion. It’s as if the genes of liberals have rendered them immune to all forms of filth.

That’s right, Mike. It’s genetic. Just like the "mud people", liberals are an entirely different breed. (Again, please take note of Mike’s down-to-earth lack-of-elitist attitudes here).

As a final insult, liberal lawyers and judges have become locusts of the Left, conspiring to destroy democracy itself by excreting statutes and courtroom tactics that fertilize electoral fraud and sprout fields of vandals who will cast undeserved and copious ballots on Election Day.

Unless, of course, the herbicide of conservatism is applied before the harvest, in which case they will just rotate their crops to make the fungicide of liberalism . . . oh, fuck it.

The truth is, America is not just broken–it is becoming irreparable. If you believe that recent years of uncivil behavior are burdensome, imagine the likelihood of a future in which all bizarre acts are the norm, and a government-booted foot stands permanently on your face. That is why the unthinkable must become thinkable. If the so-called "Red States" (those that voted for George W. Bush) cannot be respected or at least tolerated by the "Blue States" (those that voted for Al Gore and John Kerry), then the most disparate of them must live apart–not by secession of the former (a majority), but by expulsion of the latter. Here is how to do it.

Let’s see. The "Red States" just won an election. So why are you saying now that you are MORE LIKELY to have the government’s boot in your face, Mike? And why is the solution is to have the government’s boot in the ass of the Blue States? I’m confused and intrigued . . .

Having been amended only 17 times since 10 vital amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added at the republic’s inception, the U.S. Constitution is not easily changed, primarily because so many states (75%, now 38 of 50) must agree.

In other words, what I have proposed is so preposterously stupid that most states won’t agree with it.

Yet, there are 38 states today that may be inclined to adopt, let us call it, a "Declaration of Expulsion," that is, a specific constitutional amendment to kick out the systemically troublesome states and those trending rapidly toward anti-American, if not outright subversive, behavior. The 12 states that must go: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, and Delaware. Only the remaining 38 states would retain the name, "United States of America." The 12 expelled mobs could call themselves the "Dirty Dozen," or individually keep their identity and go their separate ways, probably straight to Hell.

Okay, okay. Many questions here.

Will the consitutional amendment actually require those 12 states to go straight to Hell? I just want to make sure that the Hell part is optional, right?

Second of all, how come the Red States get to keep Hawaii? And Pennsylvania? And Washington? And Oregon? Aren’t they "systematically troublesome", too? Just as much as Maine and New Hampshire and Delaware, I suggest. And certainly the District of Columbia needs to be booted out, too, right? And considering that most of the original colonies are getting expelled, then the name "United States of America" goes with them. I mean, you can be moronic, but be fair about it.

A difficult-to-pass constitutional amendment, however, is not necessary. There is an equally lawful route that mercifully would be both easier and faster. Inasmuch as Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution specifies that "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union," it is reasonable that the same congressional majority may expel a state from the Union.

Yyyyyyyeah. Because the words "admit" and "expel" are exact opposites, so . . . then obviously it is reasonable to think that the Founders intended Congress to EXPEL states as well as ADMIT them. And anyone who disagrees is probably a liberal activist judge legislating from the bench who can’t read plain English.

[Fast forward]

The demographics revealed by the two most recent presidential elections are radically different and have resulted in "Two Americas" (but not the simplistic "Two Americas" [one rich, one poor] envisioned by Kerry’s Marxist-tongued running mate, John Edwards):

BUSH USA is predominantly white; devoutly Christian (mostly Protestant); openly, vigorously heterosexual; an open land of single-family homes and ranches; economically sound (except for a few farms), but not drunk with cyberworld business development, and mainly English-speaking, with a predilection for respectfully uttering "yes, ma’am" and "yes, sir."

GORE/KERRY USA is ethnically diverse; multi-religious, irreligious or nastily antireligious; more sexually liberated (if not in actual practice, certainly in attitude); awash with condo canyons and other high-end real estate bordered by sprawling, squalid public housing or neglected private homes, decidedly short of middle-class neighborhoods; both high tech and oddly primitive in its commerce; very artsy, and Babelesque, with abnormally loud speakers.

I’m guessing that the "predominately white" one is supposed to be the good one, right? After all, it’s mostly Protestant (you know, the good kind of Christianity). Not sure how conservatives would feel about this "open" and "vigorous" heterosexuality though.

But I think I can get a better cup of coffee in Gore/Kerry USA, so I pick that one. Besides, it doesn’t sound like the Bush USA has been wired for cable . . . or much else.

Bush USA also is far safer, its murder rate being about 16% of the homicidal binge that plagues Gore/Kerry USA–2.1 per 100,000 residents, compared with 13.2 per 100,000 (from a study by Professor Joseph Olson, Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota).

And more polite with all the "Yes, Ma’am" and "Yes, Sir" stuff you’ll be imposing.

[Fast forward]

As for the dozen ex-American states, they could always petition the UN and EU for foreign aid. Moreover, with any good luck (or bon chance), socialist Canada would annex our jettisoned territory, eh?

Let’s see. We get New York, Illinois AND California? And we’ll be applying for foreign aid? Isn’t that the same faulty economic assessment made by the South in the Civil War War Between The States?

Well, thank you, Mike for your proposal. I’ll take it under advisement. Um, excuse me. Advissement.

What do you think?