At first you will laugh. Then you will say, "well, wait a minute, here". Then you will say, "well, actually, the more I think about this." Then you will say, "Let's do it, what took us this long?"



Outline:

I An open letter to my fellow Vermonters

II An Open Letter to the Vermont Legislature

III An Open Letter to Pollina, Sanders, Dean and the other Leaders of this Chosen and Special Place

IV An Open Letter to The Canadien Prime Minister, The Parlimentary MP's, and The People of Canada

V An Open Letter to the People of Puerto Rico

VI An Open Letter to the Congress of the United States and the People of the South

VII An Open Letter to The President of The United States

.........

I. An Open Letter to My Fellow Vermonters

There are two parts of this letter to you. The first concerrns "why" and the second concerns "how".

It has been clear for some time that the people of Vermont do not see things the same way that most people in the rest of the U. S. see things. However, over the past several years, a significant progression of that fact has occured. It is now clear that Vermonters and most of the rest of the U. S. CANNOT see things in the same way. This is meaningfully different from "do not". What this means is that Washington D. C. (hereinafter D. C.) is not only hostile towards our values at this time, but that it ALWAYS WILL BE from now on.

We know that we are different, and always have been. We were the first state to CONSTITUTIONALLY ban slavery. We are the only state with an Independent in the House of Representatives (despite the fact that we only have ONE representative!). We are the only state that has an Independent in the U. S. Senate (that would be a fellow named Jim Jeffords, by the way). We are the state of Howard Dean. Our other Senator, Patrick Leahy, has led the fight in the recent "judicial fillibuster" controversies. We are the state of "bizarre" judicial rulings, such as civil unions, which has now spread to other parts of the country and is now considered the moderate alternative to gay marriage. Not to mention the Brigham decision, which led to Act 60 and the novel idea that poor children in public schools should have the same funding on a per child basis as rich children. That has also spread to other states now, though it seems to be confined to New England at the moment. And the latest development, from what I understand, is that the entire state has been placed on the endangered historic places list due to our natural landscape being targeted by behomoth department store chains who have already swallowed up most other states.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT I WISH FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND IS THIS: THE LARGE VALUES GAP BETWEEN VERMONT AND THE U.S. WILL NOT "CLOSE" IF THE DEMOCRATS RETAKE POWER IN D.C. HISTORY HAS SHOWN THAT DEMOCRATS, EVEN WHEN THEY CONTROL BOTH THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE CONGRESS, CANNOT "REVERSE" THINGS. THEY CAN ONLY PREVENT THINGS FROM GETTING WORSE THAN THEY ALREADY ARE.

Let us take a look at the Clinton years. Sure, the economy was good. That was a result of two things, the usual "boom and bust" cycle of any economy, and the one time initial financial bonanza that resulted from GATT, a massive worlwide trade deal. At first, America only felt the "good" economic effects of that trade deal, a huge international boost in demand for U.S. products and huge increased revenue. This did, initially, "trickle down". In the long run, it has turned out to be a bad economic and moral choice. American jobs are now being "outsorced" to places like China and India, where people are slaving away for very low pay and no labor protections. American corporations are getting filthy rich and it is not "trickling down" anymore to the middle class.

Just what pieces of legislation did Clinton actually get through Congress to become law? Legistlslation consistent with Vermont's values or opposed to them? Mr. Clinton's intentions were good. He ran on a platform of bringing universal health insurance coverage to the U. S. (similar to what a place by the name of CANADA has). From 1992 to 1994, he had a democratic majority in the House AND Senate to work with. He also had a strong and influential ally running the cuase: Hillary Clinton. So what happened? Even with a minority in BOTH houses of congress, republicans, led by Bob Dole, "filibustered" and otherwise obstructed it in the Senate. This is becuase the health insurance corporations didn't want it to happen, and republicans are completely controlled by corporations. A filibuster is a procedure in the senate which makes it so that a bill needs SIXTY, not a simple majority of FIFTY votes to pass. The only way to break a filibuster is to have sixty votes in the senate. This means you need sixty REAL DEMOCRATS ( not zell miller types) in the senate. Keep in mind that each state has two senators. If you look at the map and see how many southern states there are, you will see that that is NEVER going to happen. There will never be sixty real, Vermont style democrats in th senate.

O.K., then what happened? Senator George Mitchell of Maine submitted a watered down version of Clintons health care bill, covering 95% of the American people. THAT bill was the "filibustered" in the senate, killing it. Remember, this was with DEMOCRATS "controlling" the house, senate and white house. And the, even a moderate REPUBLICAN bill to expand health coverage, by moderate northern republican Senator John Chaffee, Sr. of Rhode Island, couldn't get through. All environmental legislative bills from 1992-1994, which would have benefited the environment at the expense of polluting giants in the corporate world, were killed in the senate in similar fashion. Many of them had 58 votes in the senate, or 56, or whatever, but not the 60 needed to break a filibuster.

Then in 1994, the rest of the U.S. decided to hand the congress (both houses) to the Republicans. It has been in their hands ever since, with the brief exception of a one year time period when the aforementioned Mr. Jeffords tipped the senate to a one vote democrat majority. The Newt Gingrich led congress made sure that health an environment bills did not even reach the floors of congress. Instead, they impeached Clinton on trumped up sex charges.

Oh, legislation of SOME sort did pass from 1994-2000 under Clinton, but only things "conservatives" liked: GATT, NAFTA, the "three strikes and you're out" crime bill, and "welfare reform".

So even if Kerry wins, it won't reverse anything. This congress will be closely divided if not republican. And as you can see from above, it wouldn't matter even if it was a democrat "controlled" congress. Kerry will only be able to slow down the movement of things as they are now, by vetoing the negative bills that will come from congress.

Vermonters want fair taxation, not tax bills with schemes and loopholes for the corporate rich at the expense of everyone and everything else. We want a balanced budget, not to operate with colossal deficits due to tax cuts for the rich all the time. We want universal haelth insurance for people. Our tendency is towards inclusion, not exlusion. We want responsible environmental policies. We want to be part of the environmental solution, not part of the environmental problem that the U.S. has become. We want a viable social security program for the elderly and disabled, not one constantly under threat from budget shortfalls due to tax cuts for th rich. We also want a morally acceptable gap between rich and poor, not the completely unacceptable gap we see in the U.S. These are our values, as expressed by the way we have voted over long periods of time. However, they are not the values of the U. S. and the policies of D. C., as expressed by voting and legislative patterns over a long period of time.

I know that we loved what America used to be. The American Dream, now a broken promise. FDR's America. That is the America we loved. But FDR's America is gone and it is not coming back. FDR's America is dead-forever. The America that you see now is the new America, and it is here to stay. Look at it. Do you love it, the way it is now? I mean, really, really love it? We don't hate it, but let's face it, we don't love it either. Psychology and morally, we know intuitively that people need to be part of a nation they love. If you take a good look at Canada, you will see that it is a lot like FDR's America, and quite different than the George W. Bush/ Bob Dole/ Ronald Reagan/ Richard Nixon America that has been with us for too long and is here to stay. The separation and merging with Canada, of which I speak, is a NATURAL AND INEVITABLE PASSING. It is in the long term best interest of everyone involved.

Canada has the things mentioned in the above paragraph. Canada also declined to participate in the Vietnam war and this latest Iraq war. (It fought in the first Gulf war and in WWII). We are the second smallest state, the most "liberal" state, and we already share a border with Canada. Someone has to stand up to the evil that D. C. has done and is doing in a meaningful way. If anyone was ever going to do it, it would be us. This is a matter of conscince, principle and morality. Once again, the responsibility to lead falls to Vermont. We are leaders, we have been since the days of Ethan Allen. Now we are being called upon by our morality and conscience to lead again.

It is clear that we have again been chosen to do what needs to be done. For those of you who are religious, you will be asked whether you answered the call. If you are Christian, you are a Christian first and an American second. By northerner's view of Christianity, it has become almost impossible to be both Christian and American at the same time, as the policies of D. C. are so hostile to the values we believe (and know) flow from Christianity. If you are not a Christian, but your beliefs, religious or secular, are to love others as you love yourself and you take that to heart, then you are called also. In short, Vermont is being called upon to do what needs to be done.

VERMONT NEEDS TO BE PART OF A NATION THAT SHARES ITS VALUES. THAT NATION IS CANADA, NOT THE UNITED STATES.

This is different tha all previous, and failed, Vermont secession proposals, as you will see if you read on. To become an independent republic, the previous idea, just won't fly with voters becuase it is a little too risky. We occupy a very small land area, and there are only about 600,000 of us. There is a sense of security that comes from being part of a much bigger and established nation, with an existing constition, military ect. This proposal, to join Canada, alleviates much of that anxiety. It is, therefore, much more viable than the "independent republic" idea or the "form an alliance with New England or Quebec" idea. Those ideas have and will continue to fail. "But this one will never happen either," you say. Read on.

HOW

There is a procedure for putting a statewide referendum question on the ballot in Vermont. The Vermont legislature must pass a bill authorizing it.
This would be the referendum question:


*************Shall the State of Vermont immediately secede from the United States and become a Canadien Province, if Canada will provincialize Vermont, or become an Independent Republic IF AND ONLY IF Canada will not provincialize Vermont?*********************


There used to be, and I hope still are, two members of that legislature who have published a book called, "Out now, the Vermont secessionist manual". I believe that one of them, or someone else in the VT legislature, will submit such a bill for consideration. I will be addressing them in a later section. Vermonters derserve to have an opportunity to vote on this issue. If they vote "no", fine, but the legislature should not deny us the opportunity to vote on it. See my letter to the legistlature, next section.

Once Vermonters vote, if they answer the call to lead and vote yes, we would then need one of our U. S. Congressional Representatives, (most likely Sanders) to submit the NORTH AMERICAN RECONFIGURATION ACT to congress. The three representatives will say publicly over and over prior to the refrendum vote that they will not do so. They will say that becuase they have to per the oath they took when they were sworn in to Congress. But if the referendum passes, I believe that one of them will do what needs to be done at that time.

"Even if all of that did happen, that act would never get through congress", you say. THE RECONFIGURATION ACT WOULD MAKE PUERTO RICO A STATE AT THE SAME TIME IT RELEASED VERMONT.

Well, things are starting to get interesting now, aren't they?

This will be continued in another posting, because I don't want to take a chance on losing everything I have typed thus far.