Ken Blackwell's argument is shallow. In explaining "what Ron Paul got wrong" he said nothing. He dropped names Washington, Lincoln, etc, as is he could commandeer logic by invoking their names. His most direct argument was the distinction between the words secede and independence and how they apply to the revolutionary war and civil war. It is sad to think that many conservatives might buy this logic, as if America achieved independence without first seceding (pull away) from Great Britain or that the Confederacy seceded without the ultimate goal of independence.
It is as if Blackwell was told to write an anti-Pauline polemic and this is the half-hearted best he could do. He should look-up the meanings of secede, independent and shill.
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,...
Oh, and pigs fly.