Maryland Counties Join Movement to Secede from State


I was made aware several months back when I spoke with Maryland Delegate Mike Smigiel, the man who was instrumental in exposing the tyranny in the Maryland House of Delegates, that there were several countries that were looking to secede from the not so "Free State" and merge with Virginia. At that time, a letter was being crafted to that effect. However, since that time Smigiel has been actively involved in pushing back against the gun control tyranny imposed by the Maryland legislature and Governor Martin O'Malley. However, several groups in western Maryland have had it with the liberal state government and are joining a growing movement to secede.

Fox News reports:

Western Maryland is made up of five counties whose residents largely vote Republican and feel under-represented at the state capitol, run by Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley and a Democrat-controlled legislature.

The movement began in July as a social-media effort, with activist Scott Strzelczyk starting a Facebook page titled the Western Maryland Initiative.

The movement, however, has since garnered significant media attention, with Strzelczyk talking to everybody from National Public Radio to The Washington Post.

"We are tired of this," he said during an interview Thursday with Washington-area NPR affiliate WAMU. "We have had enough."

Strzelczyk says that among his concerns are increased taxes and the Democrat-controlled legislature gerrymander of voting district in which the state's big metropolitan areas have a higher percentage of representation which enacted tougher gun laws this year.

He's said those gun control laws were "the last straw."

While people in Maryland are frustrated, as are citizens across the nation, including Colorado, Delegate Mike Smigiel says there is a Constitutional means of secession. Smigiel told Freedom Outpost that he often quotes Maryland's Declaration, in which Article 6 clearly states:

That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

Smigiel says he is often labeled an "insurrectionist," which he claims is ridiculous because he is merely echoing the words of Maryland's Declaration.

Delegate Smigiel told Freedom Outpost that the counties would first need to seek a reception from a nearby state, such as Delaware or Virginia. If that was approved, they would then approach the Maryland legislature and request secession just as stated in Article 6 above.

As with anything dealing with a tyrannical government, I'm guessing Maryland would not be willing to let those counties and their money go to another state. In the end, it would probably result in the government attempting to use force in a manner similar to that of the War of Northern Aggression.

Rural Coloradans have also started an initiative to become the 51st state and have expressed similar concerns to those of the residents of Maryland. Colorado recently recalled two senators over their tyrannical anti-gun positions, which resulted in sweeping gun control legislation.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.






  • J J

    Can liberals and Democrats really not understand from these actions that there are multitudes of Americans who are extremely unhappy with the Democrat run federal government and state governments?? Why are they so stubborn in their thoughts that they are right and there is no argument to be made?? Isn't that a bit like the Islam ideology - join us or die???

  • DD823

    Should the state of Maryland use force to stop a lawful secession that will spark a second civil war in this country. People across the country are near the boiling point with all the far left rules, regulations and political correctness that is ruining our country.

  • bull57

    I have concluded that city people need someone to care for them, thus we have big government. They just don't or can't understand that the rest of us don't. We get thing done on our own without big brothers help! The only answer I can come up with is conservatives need to take over the government one level at a time starting with city, county and then state! We also need to refuse to vote for moderates or Rino's and take them out in the primaries!

  • James Bevis

    I have never heard of counties seceding. Will be interesting to see what happens. Good luck.

    • Daniel from TN

      The last time that happened was when West Virginia seceded from Virginia. I do not remember the year.

    • James Bevis

      Right, I had forgotten about that, good example.

    • livefreeordie

      Around the time of the Civil War.

  • C.S

    I remember when last year everybody was bashing Texas for talking about seceeding. Now there are a number of states wanting to do the same. Ain't that something!

    • livefreeordie

      Ahead of the curve.

  • SIRWIZARD

    Secession turned into a bit of a problem in 1861. Maybe a county will have better luck. If not, we could try a different approach this time. What if all the RED States got together in something like a Constitution Convention, and voted all the BLUE States out of the Union? We'd still have the Constitution and the BLUE States would have to get their own. Of course, BORDER SECURITY would became very important. The border would have to work like a DIODE...Low Resistance when a LIBERAL wanted to leave the RED States and High Resistance whenever a Liberal wanted to enter a RED State. Of course, we could allow Liberal tourists (provided they had a valid Passport and Visa). Liberals might want to tour the RED areas to 'See what success looks like'.

    • Clint

      I like the way you think.

    • SIRWIZARD

      Thank you, Clint. Some just tell me where to go (but they never provide the directions on how to get there).

    • Randmo

      Have you seen any of those Texas commercials? They have run some in Md. showing businesses in Texas succeeding with their low taxes and few regulations. They were also shown in California. Many businesses have voted with their feet.

    • livefreeordie

      It is also in the Texas Constitution that we can never have a state income tax. I guess that would change if we had to secede, but we are one of the few states that does not have a state income tax. But, please, LIBERALS NEED NOT APPLY!!!

    • Randmo

      LFOD: My home state of Florida also has no state income tax. All of our tourists pay it for us. So please feel free to come to sunny Florida for vacation! I don't need to specify conservatives only since they hate us for acquitting Zimmerman. Two birds, one stone ;-)

    • SIRWIZARD

      I have, indeed seen some Randmo. The fellow in the governor's chair (Rick Perry) is a go-getter and an unbelievable thorn in Mr. Obama's side...and quite a few BLUE State governors, too. GO, RICK.

    • Randmo

      Yeah. I like him too.

    • Zeda

      LOL! Great idea!

  • Cameron Triplett Sr

    Maybe every major city in the USA should be declared city-States & forced to stand on their own two behind legs w/o the financial input from Conservative rural counties. Control the migration of people from the cities to the rural areas because they mostly bring drugs & crime w/them, even when some people are trying to escape that. A large group of people living in a small area cannot understand a smaller group of people living in a MUCH larger area. The two situations are just too different.

  • Laurent1

    Good luck to them, but they'd need the approval of the US Congress, over the bitter opposition of the MD delegation. Incidentally, it was the citizens of Baltimore (then a center of the slave trade) who wanted to murder President-elect Lincoln in March 1861. The Western counties of MD were true to the Union, like their neighbors in WVA.

  • D'Bak61

    'Extremists' and 'insurrectionists,'aka conservatives will always get a bad wrap from libtards who in essence look at the words of our founding documents and tell us that the words do not mean what they actually say. (Or that certain words and phrases were only added so people would sign on at the time, but they didn't really mean what they wrote so it doesn't count). These people are the MORONS who will breed the useful idiots of tomorrow

    • livefreeordie

      I am a pro choice individual......unless you're a liberal.

  • ChristCrusader

    I think maybe there needs to be more autonomy allowed on the county and city/town level, to allow for significant differences in needs and preferences between jurisdictions, such as rural vs urban, liberal vs conservative. This would allow for people to sift into their preferred living conditions. It's not as critical anymore to be bound to a particular geographical location to have access to services, so the freedom to choose where to live is greater than ever before, and not have to give up electricity, jobs, stores, education, etc.

  • TheRentschmeister

    Speaking as someone who lives on Maryland's Right-side, the Eastern Shore, there are thousands of us who would happily do this as well. We are a deeply Conservative area and would be happy to wash our hands of Maryland and join with Virginia or Delaware (the two States we share the Delmarva Peninsula with). But it will be a cold day in hell before Maryland would allow the cash-cow that are the towns that lie along the Atlantic Ocean like Ocean City,MD (a town that becomes the second most populated town in Maryland during the Summer months) to leave the State of Maryland short of an armed insurrection.

    • spartacus

      so be it !

    • Jack Hollis

      If you start an armed insurrection I will come fight with you.

  • Strangerinastangeland

    Maryland had their chance in 1860 and blew it.

    • WASP

      BS. They want to secede from Liberals, not from disunited United States. These damm redneck "Confederate" sore losers have been bitching about losing the Civil war for close to 150 years. They somehow equate being oppressed by fascist-porgressive democraps today with losing the Civil War. What's done is done, but today's situation can be remedied--if they can get their head out of their butts long enough to see the difference.

    • Strangerinastangeland

      Just as an intellectual exercise, I contend that the issues the States faced in the Civil War (excepting slavery--hence the intellectual exercise) were the same. A nascent but still overreaching Federal Government that refused to let sovereign states leave the voluntary Union. By denying the States the right to leave the Union, the Union denied that the States had sovereign status, that the States were, in fact, inferior to the Federal Government.

      But I agree with your thoughts of fighting the progressive marxist movement.

    • spartacus

      hey " stain" stick with the article and leave sleeping dogs lie ! , what a bozo !!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Cameron Triplett Sr

      The South did not lose because of inferior leadership or troops, but because of running out of able men to fight & not having an industrial base w/which to arm soldiers. Except for slavery, the South was right. As an aside, Ge. Grant's wife kept her personal slave until slavery was outlawed in Dec. 1865, months AFTER the "war to end slavery" ended, while Gen Lee freed his slaves as soon as LEGALLY allowed to do so. MOST Southerners fighting in the War did not even own slaves, but dearly loved the States in which they lived. Lee could have been Commamder of the Northern forces @ the beginning, but could not bear arms against his beloved native Virginia. Before you condemned (the definition of "damned") Yankees start spouting off your revised history & you Southern apologists chime in, do some research into the FACTS concerning the War. Union taxes on Southern cotton being exported to England where it sold at a MUCH higher price & Yankee Senators passing a bill that would require all future States to be "free" or "non-slave" States was decried as illegal & a ploy to put slave States in a political minority which would have rendered the South to having NO representation in the Federal ZGov't. Slavery was a side issue on both sides used to inflame passions. When people get mad enough. they'll do about anything w/o thinking about the consequences. On another front, IF the South had won, Cuba would probably be a Confederate State today & slavery would have died a natural death because of the improvements made in farming methods shortly after the war ended. Slavery was an expensive institution. Machines are cheaper. Stick that in your pipie & smoke it. PS-I don't "owe" any "African-American" a damned thing because their ancestors probably were slaves. In fact, many were freedmen & some of those owned slaves themselves. Grow up & learn from the past instead of imagining how bad it wasn't for everyone.

    • LittleRoot_48

      I love your response to WASP. I bluntly told him to "kiss my redneck Confederate" backside. These northern elitist snobs just gripe my soul at times and I just can't help myself.

    • livefreeordie

      Not to mention that the first slave owner was a black man by the name of Anthony Johnson. Up to that time, there were indentured servants which had a time limit set. Long story short, in 1655, the court ruled sanctions for blacks to own slaves of their own race. Whites still could not legally hold a black servant as an indefinite slave until 1670. So, in America, blacks owned slaves 15 years before whites did. In the muslim world, they can and do still have slaves, including sex slaves.

      BTW, with Africa's high mortality birth rate and diseases, many of the blacks in this country, had their ancestors stayed in Africa, would never have been born.

    • LittleRoot_48

      You can kiss my "redneck Confederate" backside, WASP.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mike-Young/100001630951601 Mike Young

    I wonder if all Middle Illinois Counties down to Southern Illinois counties could succeed to Missouri. At least then Mid-Illinois and Southern Illinois would have a voice in Politics as well, Currently, Chicago and Crook County Control almost all of Illinois Politics and we all know how honest Chicago politicians are (sarcasm intended).

    • Art Hock

      You got that right Mike. The crooks go all the way to the White House.

    • Watchman73

      Wait until after Gov. Nixon is recalled. He is no friend of gun rights.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    Good for them, provided their new government plans don't repeat the same
    mistakes of our late 18th-century founders who are responsible for
    putting America on the brink of destruction. In other words, provided
    they return to our TRUE 1600 American Christian heritage, when the
    Colonials established governments of, by and for Yahweh based upon His
    immutable and thus perfect moral law (Psalm 19:7-11). Any thing else
    will inevitably be just another case of Judges 21:25, everyone doing
    that which is right in His own eyes, both individually and collectively.

    For more regarding how Yahweh's triune moral law (His commandments,
    statutes, and judgments) apply today, see free online book "Law and
    Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant." Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to title.

    • lakeside227

      They wouldn't need new government plans. They want to secede from one state and be annexed into another state. Still part of the United States, still governed by the Constitution of the U.S. and the constitution of whichever state accepts them.

      Are you STILL haunting the comment sections and peddling this nonsense?

    • David Hodges

      I think he still believes that America's exceptionalism was a result of our founding foregrandfathers embracing Biblical law. Kinda like Israel's blessings being a result of their lineage from Abraham, rather than from the naming a calf "Yahweh."

    • lakeside227

      No, our exceptionalism is because our Founding Fathers recognized that the PEOPLE are the ones who have the inherent power to govern themselves. That EVERYONE is BORN equal, with Natural Rights that no one, no government, can take away. That government exists because the PEOPLE CHOOSE to delegate to it the power for it to exist.

      The nonsense to which I referred was NOT his PERSONAL religious beliefs - I don't put down ANYONE'S personal religion. EVERYONE is free to choose the religion they want OR no religion. However, THEIR beliefs apply ONLY to them, they DON'T apply to anyone else.

      The nonsense I meant was that our Country's LAWS should be based on the laws of a particular religion. That the religious beliefs of SOME people should rule EVERYONE. Our Constitution prohibits that, I follow the Constitution. The Constitution has NO affect on a person's private religious beliefs. The Constitution applies to our government.

    • David Hodges

      You think you'll ever be equal to anyone who believes Psalms 19:7?

    • lakeside227

      I think that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law - our Country's laws - not religious laws that apply ONLY to those who follow that religion.

    • David Hodges

      We don't all equally believe His law is perfect, though, do we?

    • lakeside227

      Whether a person believes the laws from the Bible are perfect has absolutely NOTHING to do with the laws of our Country. The laws of the Bible do NOT govern the Country - they ONLY govern those who BELIEVE in the Bible and the God of the Bible.

    • David Hodges

      And since the author of the law of a society is the (G,g)od of that society, the god of America is WeThePeople, right?

    • lakeside227

      That is YOUR contention. The Founders recognized that our Creator - whomever a person believes their Creator to be - endowed us with unalienable Rights and the INHERENT power to decide WHO we allow to govern us - in THIS world - in SOCIETY. The laws of society have NOTHING to do with the laws of the religion (or no religion) that a person chooses.

      You, and many, are unable to separate the laws of our society with personal, private beliefs of a person's chosen religion and its teachings & laws. That is YOUR failing, not mine. You believe the laws of your chosen religion should rule our whole society - that is COMPLETELY against our Constitution - which is supreme law for our Country. The Constitution does NOT interfere with a person following the laws of their chosen religion. It DOES prevent some people from FORCING their religious beliefs onto others. The Constitution is DESIGNED to do that, it recognizes and protects the freedom of everyone to choose their own religion or no religion.

      You, Mr. Weiland, and others, want to CHANGE our Constitution so that the Right to choose, for ourselves, whether or not to follow a religion, and which one, is GONE. People will not allow that. Not because they are against God or religion, but because they believe religion is a choice to be made by the individual and NOT forced by government. You seem to think it SHOULD be FORCED by government - you are wrong.

    • David Hodges

      So you believe humans should collectively make laws, but it is my contention that you are a humanist?

    • lakeside227

      Why do you want to label people? You want to put me in a little box so you can criticize me? So you can point out every way I am wrong according to what you BELIEVE?

      How do my personal, private beliefs on religion - which I have not expressed - affect you in any way? My personal, private beliefs don't affect what you believe, they don't impact you in any way.

    • David Hodges

      Label people? You mean use words Jesus used, like "hypocrite," and phrases like "your father the devil"? What is your definition of the "label" "humanist"?

    • lakeside227

      It doesn't MATTER how I define 'humanist.' That word is not pertinent to this conversation - it never was.

      My comments are from a Constitutional point of view. I'm speaking about the laws of our Country. I'm protecting the Constitutionally protected Right of freedom of religion. I'm speaking out against the teachings and laws of ANY religion being used in our laws.

      Men are endowed, by whomever they believe their Creator to be, with the Natural, born with Right and inherent power to make their own laws and choose whom they allow to govern them.

      If a person - singular - chooses to ALSO be governed by religious laws - a religion they freely choose - that is protected in our Country. The person may ONLY choose for himself, though, he CANNOT make that choice for others.

      You can call my support of the Constitution, and the Constitutional laws of our Country, whatever you want. I don't have to agree with your label, or even acknowledge that you have labeled it. That's what you are failing to understand. Your opinions and beliefs and thoughts and descriptions are for YOU only - they don't affect me in any way - no matter how much you want them to.

  • mapoffla

    From an Anne Arundel County expat living in FL since '87: I hope you are successful.

  • fliteking

    Good news. I wish them good luck.