ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

But secession is unpossible!

Events are making it increasingly difficult for the anti-secessionist scoffers in the USA to credibly claim that secession is unthinkable and impossible, either here or anywhere else in the world.
Separatists in the Spanish region of Catalonia moved one step closer to independence on Tuesday when the two largest pro-independence parties announced their intention to form an alliance and push for a referendum in 2014. As the New York Times notes, these two parties hail from opposite ends of the political spectrum and have failed to see eye-to-eye for years. The fact that they are now uniting suggests that Catalonia is getting serious about independence.

Madrid did its best to spin the results of the Catalonia election as a defeat for the secessionists, but as we predicted, the new Catalan coalition has united behind the demand for an independence referendum that Madrid says is illegal.
Notice that Catalonia has not been independent of Castille since 1516, and lost its right to its own laws in 1716.  This voluntary union is considerably older than the federal Union violently imposed upon the southern States by Washington in 1865; the US union is younger, shakier, and much more morally suspect than the Castillan-Catalonian one.

Of course the government in Madrid says Catalonian self-determination is illegal.  Those who rule without the consent of the people always say self-determination is illegal; like the great dictator Abraham Lincoln, they will say anything in order to prevent those over whom they wish to rule from gaining their freedom.

Labels: ,

62 Comments:

Blogger JDC December 23, 2012 1:08 PM  

Catalonians are a bunch of legaliss'

Blogger Crude December 23, 2012 1:09 PM  

I can't imagine Catalonia's secession would be tolerated. It wouldn't just be about Spain - I get the impression that just about major power would oppose it, at least behind the scenes. Does any power want to allow the example that nations can break up, just because a significant number of people in a distinct geographical area don't like the policies or government or vision of the greater state?

I guess we'll see what happens. I also wonder, are there any polls showing what the opinion of secession is outside of Catalonia? How does the rest of Spain view it?

Anonymous salt December 23, 2012 1:10 PM  

FREEDOM!

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments December 23, 2012 1:22 PM  

@ crude

Yeah but if/when behind the scenes efforts fail, what are they going to do?

Blogger Laramie Hirsch December 23, 2012 1:23 PM  

There was a time when Joe Sobran was only person I ever heard referring to Abraham Lincoln as a dictator.

Good to see people are coming out of the trance.

Anonymous TLM December 23, 2012 1:42 PM  

I thought that Daniel Day Lewis portrayal of Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood was one of, if not the greatest, pieces of acting ever witnessed on the big screen. That is now forever tainted by Spielberg's schlocky shitty Lincoln.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 23, 2012 2:05 PM  

Americans retain the right of self-determination, as described in the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson noted, the preferences and decisions of any generation are not binding on future generations of people, regardless of the cause. To this end, American citizens can honestly expect to find secession to be the lawful answer to how they will secure the blessings of future happiness and prosperity. Should they be denied their rights as human beings, they have every reason to believe that they still retain the human right to resist slavery and subjegation. Their would-be oppressors should already know what to expect.

Blogger Crude December 23, 2012 2:06 PM  

Yeah but if/when behind the scenes efforts fail, what are they going to do?

Good question, I have no idea. Probably "keep them united by force". Would the Catalonians even put up a fight if it came to that? I get the impression that no, that's not in the cards. Then again, I don't know a thing about Catalonia, so that means nothing.

I just strongly suspect that if Catalonia declared independence and they truly seceded, that would spook various governments. Wouldn't that sort of thing embolden the Quebecois? Or run risk of setting an example for the Texans?

On the other hand, I imagine that if the Catalonians do vote for secession and they're forcibly kept in place, that's going to seem pretty strange for reasons Vox has gone into in the past. Everyone loves to talk about the civil war - you know, "we already fought the civil war, the south lost, you can't secede" - but I suspect a lot of people who play that line don't really think through what they're saying.

Anonymous Hood December 23, 2012 2:23 PM  

Vd,
Did you mean Lincoln in 1865 instead of Washington?

Anonymous JartStar December 23, 2012 2:26 PM  

No football thread so I'll post this here: Texans the paper tiger? All someone has to do is simply beat the Wade Phillips blitz and have a QB be able to go through 2-3 progressions to beat the man coverage.

Where's Tad to tell us that since there's no mechanism for Catalonia to secession that the secessionists should be shot?

Anonymous zen0 December 23, 2012 2:30 PM  

I just strongly suspect that if Catalonia declared independence and they truly seceded, that would spook various governments. Wouldn't that sort of thing embolden the Quebecois?

If the rest of Canada was allowed to vote on Quebec separation they would likely vote FOR it.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments December 23, 2012 3:16 PM  

"On the other hand, I imagine that if the Catalonians do vote for secession and they're forcibly kept in place, that's going to seem pretty strange for reasons Vox has gone into in the past. "

Exactly.

Anonymous Anonymous December 23, 2012 3:18 PM  

Don't forget about Scotland! :)

Anonymous Godfrey December 23, 2012 3:28 PM  

Will The "Evil" Empire (i.e. the USSA) and NATO bomb Catalonia?

Blogger Astrosmith December 23, 2012 4:34 PM  

Texas v White: the 1867 SCOTUS ruled that secession was illegal, that once you join the union, it is forever. So there's legal precedent for the Feds to use against any state wanting to leave.

Supposedly, last year when the TX legislature was about to pass an anti-TSA bill, the Feds threatened to invade with Nat. Guard troops and impose an air blockade. The Texans backed down. It will be interesting to see what happens in the session starting next month.

Blogger Crude December 23, 2012 4:46 PM  

Supposedly, last year when the TX legislature was about to pass an anti-TSA bill, the Feds threatened to invade with Nat. Guard troops and impose an air blockade. The Texans backed down. It will be interesting to see what happens in the session starting next month.

See, that's what a lot of this comes down to. How many secessionists are willing to literally risk their lives to secede? That means anywhere: Quebec, Catalonia, or Texas. And that's where I become skeptical. I'd be surprised if there were many Catalonians willing to lay down their lives for independence. Or Quebecois or Texans for that matter.

If even the threat of military action would be enough to get most people in line in spite of their, that's that: no secession. You'd have to wait for the government to be in such disarray that they couldn't force people to remain part of the state even if they wanted to.

Blogger Crude December 23, 2012 4:47 PM  

in spite of their

In spite of their beliefs, that is.

Blogger Astrosmith December 23, 2012 4:53 PM  

Actually Texas v White was 1869

Anonymous jack December 23, 2012 6:17 PM  

Astrosmith December 23, 2012 4:53 PM

Actually Texas v White was 1869


Did not scotus once proclaim that slavery was legal? If so, then scotus can obviously be wrong. Wrong about the Consitution, wrong morally.

Blogger mmaier2112 December 23, 2012 6:31 PM  

Jack: not only that, but precedent isn't even binding. I don't know why anyone pretends that it is.

Anonymous rubberducky December 23, 2012 6:31 PM  

This is what Texas does the next time the feds threaten to invade: tell the feds, "No." Do not underestimate the power of saying "No", and do underestimate the effects of always cowering to bullies. There's nothing wrong, and quite a lot right, with standing up for yourself.

Anonymous 11B December 23, 2012 6:36 PM  

I can't imagine Catalonia's secession would be tolerated. It wouldn't just be about Spain - I get the impression that just about major power would oppose it, at least behind the scenes. Does any power want to allow the example that nations can break up, just because a significant number of people in a distinct geographical area don't like the policies or government or vision of the greater state?

The major powers not only supported the breakup of Serbia, but actively participated in the case of Kosovo and the Albanians. So I guess to use a Steve Sailer phrase, it's a question of who, whom.

Anonymous rubberducky December 23, 2012 6:43 PM  

Every state in the union has a problem with illegal immigrants now. This has long ago ceased to be a border state problem, although the border states still get the worst of it. The reason we call it "illegal" immigration is because all this has happened contrary to the established law of the land as specified through Congress and approved by the Presidency. These laws are simply not enforced by the federal government, in defiance of the outcry of the people and of the states.

Even though the federal government has vacated the law, essentially rendering it moot, it has at the same asserted the primacy of those very statues it does not enforce. Arizona found this out when it was told that immigration matters are the sole provenance of the feds even if they choose to openly flout the laws governing them. We just gotta all lay back and take it.

Note also that protection of our borders is not a trivial matter but is in fact the primary obligation of the federal government.

What are the states supposed to do when the federal government betrays not only their will but also its core, primary function? What good is it? All it does is run up insane debts in order to conduct its various social experiments upon the people. That's not its Constitution role at all.

In fact, a case can be made that it is the Federal Government that has seceeded from the Union already. Not the other way around!

Anonymous Tad December 23, 2012 7:18 PM  

@Vox Day

Surely it's not impossible to consider secession. After all we seriously consider the loopiest things possible. Some people seriously consider elves and angels. So sure. Let's consider Secession.

But let's not kid ourselves for second and think there is anything like a secession movement anywhere in America that is serious.

That said, let's hope that when Catalan has its independence vote, that it's the entire nation that votes, and not just the province of Catalan. After all, that's the only reasonable way to carry out something like that.

In the mean time, here in America, we might want to give deep thought to the nature of elves, rather than the much less likely idea of secession in America.

Anonymous Roundtine December 23, 2012 7:26 PM  

Secessionists must be prepared for war. Just or not.

Blogger kurt9 December 23, 2012 7:29 PM  

Correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that the issue of secession in the U.S. was resolved by the Civil War. Namely that secession is no longer allowed.

An option that is rarely discussed on the internet is that of restoring Federalism via a constitutional convention. We are actually two states short of a constitutional convention at this time.

Anonymous 11B December 23, 2012 7:47 PM  

Surely it's not impossible to consider secession. After all we seriously consider the loopiest things possible. Some people seriously consider elves and angels. So sure. Let's consider Secession.

Although I doubt anything will come from this talk of secession in the USA, I no longer dismiss things simply because they seem loopy, or are on par with elves and angels. In my lifetime here are some things that have transpired that I would have thought loopy years before:

1) The peaceful fall and breakup of the USSR, along with its client Warsaw Pact states. I never saw that one coming. Going into the 1980s, the USSR was seen as being ascending as compared to the USA. To see it disappear almost overnight without a major war was a shocker.

2)The rise of China. When I was a kid Red China was looked upon about the same way as we look upon North Korea today. If you would have told me in 1980 that Red China would become what they have, I'd have thought you loopy.

3) The invention of 'gay marriage'. In 1980, or even as late as 1995, would anyone have conceived of this subject, let alone of it coming into existence?

4) The demographic transformation of the USA. As a kid in the late 1970s, the thought that the US would eventually have a second official language, and that Europeans would be on their way to becoming less than 70%, let alone under 50%, would have been considered loopy.

5) A non-white, or at least half-white, being elected President. This would have seemed loopy twenty years ago. Just think how loopy it would have seemed to your parents or grandparents in the 1950s.

6) The Red Sox winning a World Series. This was just not supposed to happen, but it has twice.

Bottom line, don't think things won't come to pass because they are loopy. A hell of a lot of loopy stuff has come to pass and will continue to come to pass. I am sure people older than me have some even better examples.

Anonymous A Visitor December 23, 2012 7:58 PM  

Now, the question being, assuming Catalonia achieves independence, will it a) be recognized by Madrid (fat chance, my six months in Spain and deep dive into Spaniard politics say) and b) if it is recognized by Madrid (in some unfathomable alternate universe), will they decide to adhere to the Schegen treaty?

I remember the one time I went to Catalonia. It was Barcelona but the nationalists' (as they're called in Spanish) presence was felt everywhere, from the street signs to the subway station and beyond. Interesting times...
A Visitor December 23, 2012 7:56 PM

Also, OT, I really regret not signing up for an African safari when I was there. The gun shop was literally two floors down in the same building as my apartment.

(I accidentally posted this on "Why They're Desperate". I knew something was wrong when I kept reading comment after comment about Newton, CT).

Anonymous A Visitor December 23, 2012 8:04 PM  

"This has long ago ceased to be a border state problem, although the border states still get the worst of it."

Yes, very well said. I remember some of the lesser safe downtown areas of the major city I live nearby in the '90s, when I was a kid, being unsafe yet only hearing English spoken. Now going into those areas is almost like going to another country: I remember when I got my old car's broken windshield fixed hearing the two workers arguing in Spanish who was more illegal. That was an interesting conversation.

Anonymous Roundtine December 23, 2012 8:12 PM  

Correct me if I'm wrong. It is my understanding that the issue of secession in the U.S. was resolved by the Civil War. Namely that secession is no longer allowed.

The issue of Southern secession in 1861 was resolved by the Civil War. It is settled for as long as secessionists are a) unwilling to challenge federal authority b) fedgov is able to crush secessionist movements. I think you could say it was settled for 100 years. In the 1960s, voting patterns changed drastically, when once demonized Republicans won the South. Politics now more resembles pre-1860 America, the South is no longer part of a ruling Democratic coalition and what could be termed Yankee states (midwest, mountain states) are now adopting the States Right's arguments of John C. Calhoun.

Blogger Crude December 23, 2012 8:18 PM  

The major powers not only supported the breakup of Serbia, but actively participated in the case of Kosovo and the Albanians. So I guess to use a Steve Sailer phrase, it's a question of who, whom.

And they supported the breakaway russian states too. But I think the difference between Serbia and Spain, or Canada, or the US is pretty different.

Anonymous RC December 23, 2012 8:44 PM  

"An option that is rarely discussed on the internet is that of restoring Federalism via a constitutional convention. We are actually two states short of a constitutional convention at this time." - Kurt9

To convene a Constitutional convention would be to invite certain disaster.

Anonymous CrisisEraDynamo December 23, 2012 10:10 PM  

@ Tad

Tell me why the Catalans should remain under Spanish rule against their will? And here I thought you liked no-fault divorce!

The way I understood it, I thought imperialism was bad. But I guess that the old, European-style imperialism was bad only because "regressive" or "reactionary" regimes were doing the taking over. When progressives do the same thing and deny a people their right to self-rule, it's called "social progress" or some other such nonsense.

The Catalans have a right to self-rule. Full stop.

Anonymous First Amendment December 23, 2012 10:29 PM  

Shutup, Tad.

Anonymous Evelyn Beatrice Hall citing Voltaire December 23, 2012 10:31 PM  

Shutup, Tad

Anonymous justthinking December 23, 2012 10:34 PM  

Those who rule without the consent of the people always say self-determination is illegal; like the great dictator Abraham Lincoln, they will say anything in order to prevent those over whom they wish to rule from gaining their freedom.

You mean gaining the freedom to enslave others? Is it hard holding contradictory moral positions in your mind at once? Let's hope it leads to a stroke.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 23, 2012 10:41 PM  

It seems that secession will become serious when one of TPTB or someone in that strata defects. Defection becomes more likely over time as the rewards for defection become greater.

Of course, TPsTB try hard to ensure that defections do not occur. We can see Holmes and Lanza as warnings to that effect.

Anonymous zen0 December 23, 2012 10:45 PM  

You mean gaining the freedom to enslave others?
@ justthinking.

You are obviously not thinking at all if you think Lincoln was uniquely concerned about slavery, and that was his prime motivation. You are just blathering out what you have been force fed from birth.

At some point you need to give up momma's tit.

Anonymous justthinking December 23, 2012 11:06 PM  



You are obviously not thinking at all if you think Lincoln was uniquely concerned about slavery, and that was his prime motivation. You are just blathering out what you have been force fed from birth.

At some point you need to give up momma's tit.


Those Southern slave masters, poor babies, oppressed by the jackboots of the tyranny of the Union! Boo hoo!

I'm sure you have an elaborate theory that threads the causes of our current maladies back to Lincoln's crib or something. You guys always seem have an iconoclastic fantasy that explains everything yet accords with almost no one in the real world.

Anonymous Anonymous December 23, 2012 11:12 PM  

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

Anonymous zen0 December 23, 2012 11:20 PM  

You guys always seem have an iconoclastic fantasy that explains everything yet accords with almost no one in the real world. @ justthinking

Can't stop sucking, can you?

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 23, 2012 11:20 PM  

Those Southern slave masters, poor babies, oppressed by the jackboots of the tyranny of the Union! Boo hoo!

An what would you be saying if the situation were reversed, Mr Unthinking Knuckle Dragger?

Of course, it would not be reversed, because the South dis not seek to conquer and oppress the North. It only sought self determination.

(Lincoln said many times that slavery was not the issue.)

Anonymous justthinking December 23, 2012 11:34 PM  

I see. So I suppose when you're not complaining about the oppression of slave owners in the South you're complaining about the subjugation of the Native American population at the hands of Europeans right? You guys are further to the left than I would've thought.

Anonymous zen0 December 23, 2012 11:44 PM  

I see. You have sought refuge in incomprehensibility because facts are not on your side.

The native population were slave owners. According to you, the Europeans would be well within the right to oppress them.

You should do more research.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 23, 2012 11:45 PM  

So I suppose when you're not complaining about the oppression of slave owners in the South

One of those rare wankers who thinks that all Southerners were slave owners.

Anonymous Feh December 23, 2012 11:53 PM  

I wish Ta(r)d would secede from the comments section of this blog.

Anonymous Feh December 23, 2012 11:54 PM  

We promise to let him go without a fight...

Anonymous justthinking December 23, 2012 11:54 PM  

The native population were slave owners. According to you, the Europeans would be well within the right to oppress them.

Not necessarily, but if you're going to take a position on it as far back as Lincoln, you might as well go all the way back. You guys like to pick and choose your rights and oppressions. Your moral system is based on convenience.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 24, 2012 12:34 AM  

It could have been worse

After all, it might have been a Perry or Cain ...

Anonymous The other skeptic December 24, 2012 12:35 AM  

You guys like to pick and choose your rights and oppressions. Your moral system is based on convenience.

Unlike yours, eh, which seem to be based on forcing others to accept your moral system.

Anonymous Gugsboy December 24, 2012 2:57 AM  

Yugoslavia. That's a precedent already.

Anonymous Gugsboy December 24, 2012 3:00 AM  

They are obliged to bomb Madrid following what happened in Kosovo. Will Germany agitate for that this time around too?

Anonymous elmer December 24, 2012 3:07 AM  

The real reason to give suspicion to Lincoln:

One of the important lineages has remained secret until 3 investigators named Lincoln, Leigh, and Bageant were spoon-fed leads and secrets. They put this into a book called ‘Holy Blood, Holy Grail.’ I recommend the book and the two books which are its sequels, because they show how just one part of the 13 lineages has kept itself secret and has taken immense power of all forms to themselves.

In Southern Belgium there is a castle. (If any one is travelling there and wants to find the castle, I will show them on the map, and describe it.) This is the Mothers of Darkness castle. In that castle, is a cathedral and in that cathedral’s basement a little baby is sacrificed daily and is coming to power. The pages are written almost round the clock. (This castle is also described in my Be Wise as Serpents book.) The history in that handwritten book would reveal the real facts behind the propaganda that the world’s major news medias give the gullible public.

The history as that book reveals it would tell people about how Abraham Lincoln was a descendent of the Rothschilds. Abraham Lincoln was the secret head of the Rosicrucians, a member of their 3 headed top council. (I have seen the paper trail proof to these things about Lincoln to my satisfaction that these things about Lincoln are true.)

Adolf Hitler was also a secret member of the Rothschild lineage. Hitler carried out blood sacrifices to open his mind up to high level demonic spiritual control. Rockefeller sold Hitler oil during W.W. II via Spain to keep W.W. II going longer.

-- Fritz Springmeier

Is it possible, that Lincoln was trapped by his heritage (literally -- blood), into not allowing state's secession? It was a "catch-22." Preserve the Union as Washington also desired? Otherwise, a worse result could have ensued under Davis. Davis, not completely in light of the complete details. So, do same conditions (and consequences) still exist for the current and the subsequent POTUS? The writing is literally carved in stone, in Washington D.C. How does one remove such?

Anonymous VD December 24, 2012 3:43 AM  

It is my understanding that the issue of secession in the U.S. was resolved by the Civil War. Namely that secession is no longer allowed.

That which is imposed by force can be unimposed by force. The question of whether it is "allowed" or not is totally irrelevant, except in that it makes it clear that the federal government does not recognize the right of American self-determination.

Anonymous Jeigh Di December 24, 2012 5:33 AM  

Just to clarify things, justthinking, you were aware of the northern slave states, and the black slaveowners, weren't you?

Anonymous Starr December 24, 2012 9:06 AM  

Events are making it increasingly difficult for the anti-secessionist scoffers in the USA to credibly claim that secession is unthinkable and impossible, either here or anywhere else in the world.
That not true, it was perfectly thinkable when it came to the USSR or Yugoslavia. They even cheered on the bombing of Serbia to make Kosovo a reality (of sorts). All I can say is karma's a bitch

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 24, 2012 9:11 AM  

So I suppose when you're not complaining about the oppression of slave owners in the South you're complaining about the subjugation of the Native American population at the hands of Europeans right?

Are you claiming, therefore, that the subjugation of the thieving, murdering, slave-making Native Americans was moral, on a par with your impression of the Civil War?

If I can make a convincing case that your people are hopelessly immoral, will you lay down your arms and accept my rule as just and good? I do, after all, come from a much more advanced civilisation than yours. It would be like the conquest of the Americas once more...but with a great deal more sartorial elegance.

Blogger kurt9 December 24, 2012 2:11 PM  

That which is imposed by force can be unimposed by force. The question of whether it is "allowed" or not is totally irrelevant, except in that it makes it clear that the federal government does not recognize the right of American self-determination.

This is certainly true. We really have not had a constitutional republic in any meaningful sense since FDR.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 24, 2012 5:00 PM  

Astrosmith..."Texas v White: the 1867 SCOTUS ruled that secession was illegal, that once you join the union, it is forever. So there's legal precedent for the Feds to use against any state wanting to leave."

How very interesting, since it was inconsistent with Lincoln's own insistence that none of the states had quit the Union. ALL of the Confederate states had to be READMITTED to the Union by vote of Congress. Texas, Virginia, Georgia, and Mississippi were not READMITTED to the Union until 1870, so any decision by the Supreme Court in 1867 was three years before Texas was READMITTED to the UNION.

The same Constitution is very clear about no state being created from an existing state without the approve of the state legislature. If secession was not lawful, as you seem to believe, then the State of West Virginia is also unlawful, created as it was during the Civil War and admitted as a new state WITHOUT the approval of the Virginia Assembly. If Virginia was a state, then West Virginia could not also be admitted as a state without the approval of the Virginia legislature.....which never occured.....it being, can I say it, no longer under the jurisdiction of the Federal government.

There is of course, no provision in the Constitution for the readmission of existing states at bayonet point, nor is there any provision for readmission of a state under any circumstance, nor is there any power of the Federal government to dissolve state government or recognize a state government that usurps the authority of the historic state government. The Constitution DOES guarantee republican government of the states, and most certainly, ALL of the Confederate state governments were representative republican governments.


Anonymous DonReynolds December 24, 2012 5:19 PM  

In fact, when the Supreme Court ruled that secession was illegal in 1867, only ONE state had been READMITTED to the Union....Tennessee in 1866. If secession have not been lawful in 1867...as you say.....then none of the remaining former Confederate states would need to be READMITTED to the Union, a process that did not begin again until 1868 and was not completed until 1870.

Somehow, I must have missed this as one of the powers of the Congress....the power to ignore Supreme Court decisions.

Blogger kurt9 December 25, 2012 3:57 PM  

....the power to ignore Supreme Court decisions.

Andrew Jackson certainly believed this.

Anonymous FrankNorman December 26, 2012 1:16 AM  

elmer December 24, 2012 3:07 AM

The writing is literally carved in stone, in Washington D.C. How does one remove such?
VD


With a hammer and chisel?

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts