In response to:

What Ron Paul Gets Wrong

david1833 Wrote: Nov 18, 2012 4:49 AM
Most of this article is merely semantics, with some light shed regarding the Southern seceesion. The author comes to his point late in the piece, namely that a true secession movement COULD be very bloody. SO he objects to what Ron Paul said because the author hass already considered that the price of libertry is too high. Now would he write a piece onthe price of subservience? We wil pay at least one price and at least one time. In fact, we've been paying th eprice of subservience in installments already

Congressman Ron Paul has just delivered his valedictory address in the House of Representatives. And he has told TV interviewers that the American Revolution was a wonderful example of secession. He's a much better OB/GYN, I'm sure, than he is a student of America's history. He could be cited for political malpractice.

If the Founding Fathers and the Patriots who fought and won the Revolution were seceding, why is it that none of them ever called it secession? They certainly had the word back then. They invoked the well-known right of revolution. They had read their John Locke and their Montesquieu,...