Quote of the day—Matt Shea

Posted on by

The problem is I am not going to sit in a state that is going to try to take away our firearms, either by regulation, by cost or by confiscation, are you? So if they try to do that the only solution left is the 51st state. A lot of people say, ‘Why do you want to do that?’ It would better represent downtown Seattle’s values and our values in Eastern Washington if we split. They would stop calling us the welfare freeloaders, as one publication said. They would stop calling us names, we’re the ignorant hicks. Have your socialist values in downtown Seattle. It’s awesome. Go and do that do that experiment, but let us live free.

Matt Shea
Washington State representative
February 15, 2019
Supporters of forming 51st State of Liberty gather at capitol rotunda
[As Richard said yesterday:

Absolutely right about CW2. I have never experienced it, thank God, but have studied it enough to know I want no part of it. Trouble it takes only one side to start it. That is why I want a civil divorce before it is too late.

Sounds like a plan. Make it so.—Joe]

Share

19 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Matt Shea”

  1. A sensible, reasonable and accommodating point of view…

    Unfortunately, more than likely one that will be subjected to an Alinsky style assault as its delegitimized and swept away.

    On an almost daily basis, the likelihood of our escaping the enveloping oppression of the Progressive Reds peacefully declines.

    Jeff B.

  2. There was talk as I remember of also splitting east and west Oregon.

    One subset of that dialog was – so as to not change Senate numbers to make it more palatable – was to combine the two east halves into one state and the two west halves into another.

    But as per CS1983, the proggies would monkey wrench it to preserve their power over as many people as possible.

  3. This is well reasoned but misses the essential component-
    They will not support a new state – not because of any economic concern,
    BUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO OPPRESS- IT IS THEIR REASON TO BE.

    Their high is power. If people willingly comply, how do they know if they have power? Maybe people go along because they are agreeing. Therefore, to taste the thrill of POWER, it is necessary that people be FORCED against their will, to do something they do not want to do. Only then, will POWER be demonstrated.

    (IIRC, I first picked up this idea from C.S.Lewis-this is merely paraphrasing.)

  5. George Washington was a white, slave-owning male. I don’t think that’s a good name for the progressive, forward thinking Seattle and associated areas.

    Split the state, but Olympia-to-Everett can come up with their own new state name. Maybe they can be the state of Roosevelt (Democrat FD, not Republican T).

  6. “Go and do that do that experiment, but let us live free.” (Sic)

    This is cute and all, but naïve as hell. It thoroughly misses the point of authoritarianism, demonstrating once again that, not only are we supporting the authoritarians on their terms while we claim to oppose them, we can’t even identify that which we (ostensibly) oppose.

    The point of Marxist/socialist/leftist/jihadist/papist “authority” is NOT to have their own way in their own little land and live in socialist harmony with other willing socialists, merely free from outside opposition. The point is to make sure that no one ELSE can live free. There is a rather important difference there, Mr. Shea.

    Raven is correct. They are not capable of leaving others alone. That’s the whole point of authoritarianism; it sees someone relatively free, relatively content, relatively prosperous, hundreds or thousands of miles away, and CAN NOT STAND FOR IT!

    When I was a young man, sometime in the 1960s or ’70s, there was a movement to form a new state out of eastern WA, north ID and western MT. It was to be called Columbia. It made sense, in theory. Then there was that one just a few years ago, to split out northern CA and I think part of southern OR. Then there was the Free State Project, or some such, in which all the lib’tarians were to transform one state’s political makeup via colonization (Muslims beat us to that).

    And of course there was Jonestown. These things have been popping up here and there in the U.S. for generations, and not one has gained any real traction other than a couple of cults which were as creepily authoritarian as anything.

    You’d have to shoot your way out of your current state, is what it comes down to, IF the goal were to form a new conservative/Protestant/libertarian state. If you wanted to form another leftist, jihadist, open borders, Marxist/papal state, you might get a federal grant and a team of Soros-funded lawyers to make that happen, but right now they’re doing that already, in essence, via illegal immigration. So get in line.

    I’m beginning to wonder if we have any politicians who made it past junior high school. Actually that’s not it. I know that they know this stuff. It’s that they don’t want to know, so they reject it. They’ve been assimilated into the collective. They have no other mode of operation than to make up dumb shit in an attempt to impress a constituency which they presume to be simple and stupid. They mock us. It’s all they can do, and so far it’s been working.

    True Believers in liberty have historically built walls to keep the marauding hordes from getting in. Authoritarians, being marauding hordes themselves, build walls to keep people FROM ESCAPING.

    They won’t let you go without a fight. They need your money, your productive capacity, capital and land, for one thing, but mainly they need power over you, and that means making you into some facsimile of themselves (broken and hateful).

    Only once we understand and acknowledge the tactical landscape, seeing that this is a global, and a spiritual, conflict, can we even begin to discuss ways of overcoming evil.

    • Yeah socialism is a global movement but if there is one thing that the 20th Century proved, it is that civilians are at much greater risk of being murdered by their “own” governments that by invading hordes. If we could just proceed with the national divorce and get the socialists in a different country it would lower our risks substantially.

  7. >>They would stop calling us the welfare freeloaders, as one publication said. They would stop calling us names, we’re the ignorant hicks.

    Interesting that name-calling is an issue for him. Wrt “welfare freeloaders,” do I really need to pull out the chart showing how much eastern Washingtonians take vs. contribute?

    >>They need your money, your productive capacity, capital and land, for one thing

    Nope. Eastern Washington is a net consumer, not a net contributor, economically.

  8. It was tried once before about 1860 or so and the result was that the North then attacked the South and enslaved them.

    • Not the same case.
      The case here is places like West Virginia and Vermont, which originally were part of other states and split from them in a manner described by the Constitution. Not secession, just “erecting a new state within the boundaries of an existing one” as the Constitution describes it.

      • Maine was also formed from Massachusetts.

        SCotUS really needs to revisit apportionment. Reynolds Vs. Sims really screwed up the Rural Vs. Urban balance in state governments by eliminating geographic apportionment (used to be by county usually) in state senates.

      • West Virginia was a result of the war of northern aggression. West Virginia split from Virginia after Virginia seceded from the US. During the freaking war by the communist northern states to make the south slaves, West Virginia decide to go commie. Vermont and New Hampshire split from New York way before New York went commie. The same is true for Maine from Massachusetts.

        In case you haven’t noticed…. commies get very aggressive when it comes to hanging on to their wage slaves. Prove me wrong on that.

  9. Lyle nails it. Authoritarianism didn’t stop at the Maginot line, it’s very strange (and here, Boyd types diplomatically because he likes Rep Shea in many respects) to assert a new line on a map is going to change the migration of folks who vote themselves largesse from the public purse and leave when the costs become obvious.

  10. A 51st state is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. It’s simply too difficult to achieve via the peaceful political process and there are too many people who stand to lose too much to allow it to happen. No. Kali has been wanting to become the “State Of Jefferson” since before WWII…..that pipe dream is still FIRMLY lodged in the pipe. America’s political structure and landscape is not going to change significantly by peaceful means. Those in power simply WILL NOT LET THAT HAPPEN.

Comments are closed.