The Constitution shows us how. Shows us what the limits ARE and how to address violators.
And how to bypass the Federal government when Congress, which has turned on its people, refuse to enforce the Constitution or to consider Amendments.
The States lost their legislative body with Direct Election of Senators. That has to be reversed; and then TERM LIMITS.
And if an Article V convention is rejected, and even as the laborious process of going around roadblock politicians IS going on, work towards State Secession.
Remember, Secession need not be permanent or even carried through. It's pulling down the fire hoses, as other attempts to control the bonfire are tried but are failing.
Indeed, the supine posture of the Republican majorities is infuriating. Regardless of the reason (greed, corruption, cowardice, gullibility, stupidity) the cession of the exercise if Congressional responsibility to the Exeutive has become baked in.
So which of the binary choice (there I go again 888blackhat) is more likely to motivate the Congress to break with recent precedent and assume its lawful and vital role in checking the Executive?
That was settled in 1865, and there is no longer an option to walk away from the Beast, and too many state government dependents in each state upon the free-flow of federal funds to allow that to happen even if a legislature attempted it.
You cannot stop tyranny via civil means. Period.
The Lawless wil not abide new laws.
The corrupt will corrupt further any attempts to leash their activities.
Oligarchs will only lay down laws for others while exempting themselves.
A people that their government holds in contempt, have absolutely no power to contend with the avarice and ambition of tyrants except the threat and use of force to impose limits on said tyrants.
The ballot box is no longer an option by any stretch of reality. It has become as corrupted as corrupt gets.
This government no longer fears we the people, they despise us and work tirelessly to impoverish and make us slaves to their will and impositions. A very nasty fate awaits a people when their government sees them the way this federal beast sees you and I.
The Constitution shows us how. Shows us what the limits ARE and how to address violators.
And how to amend it when gaps or flaws show up.
And how to bypass the Federal government when Congress, which has turned on its people, refuse to enforce the Constitution or to consider Amendments.
The States lost their legislative body with Direct Election of Senators. That has to be reversed; and then TERM LIMITS.
And if an Article V convention is rejected, and even as the laborious process of going around roadblock politicians IS going on, work towards State Secession.
Remember, Secession need not be permanent or even carried through. It's pulling down the fire hoses, as other attempts to control the bonfire are tried but are failing.
You're still just saying things, though. "Oh, well, we'll just threaten to secede! That'll show 'em!"I don't think you even need to call it secession. If a group of governors told the federal government. You are acting outside the authority of the Constitution. We don't need your money and we aren't following you laws and we will forcibly remove any federal agents you send to our state. You would need a good issue(Obamacare, or the Bundy stand off part 1 come to mind) to pull this off. Like the government shut down that didn't cause all of the panic that was expected, the feds would find out they are not as important as they think.
But you've again left off the precise "how" of the matter. You'd need to get buy-in from a significant portion of the populace. But heck: if you're in a position to get that sort of buy-in, you've got the means of making a change without something so drastic as secession; in fact, you'd get a lot more buy-in from a lot more people if secession was not part of your sales pitch.
You're still just saying things, though. "Oh, well, we'll just threaten to secede! That'll show 'em!"
But you've again left off the precise "how" of the matter. You'd need to get buy-in from a significant portion of the populace. But heck: if you're in a position to get that sort of buy-in, you've got the means of making a change without something so drastic as secession; in fact, you'd get a lot more buy-in from a lot more people if secession was not part of your sales pitch.
I don't think you even need to call it secession. If a group of governors told the federal government. You are acting outside the authority of the Constitution. We don't need your money and we aren't following you laws and we will forcibly remove any federal agents you send to our state. You would need a good issue(Obamacare, or the Bundy stand off part 1 come to mind) to pull this off. Like the government shut down that didn't cause all of the panic that was expected, the feds would find out they are not as important as they think.
Since the states will never even consider leaving the federal feed trough it's just a pipe dream. The time when men couldn't be bought is long past. You will never get men of integrity elected they just aren't entertaining enough in the outrage and laugh a minute reality TV show that is politics.
In short, we've been had.
I don't think you even need to call it secession. If a group of governors told the federal government. You are acting outside the authority of the Constitution. We don't need your money and we aren't following you laws and we will forcibly remove any federal agents you send to our state. You would need a good issue(Obamacare, or the Bundy stand off part 1 come to mind) to pull this off. Like the government shut down that didn't cause all of the panic that was expected, the feds would find out they are not as important as they think.
Since the states will never even consider leaving the federal feed trough it's just a pipe dream. The time when men couldn't be bought is long past. You will never get men of integrity elected they just aren't entertaining enough in the outrage and laugh a minute reality TV show that is politics.
In short, we've been had.
I'm not saying, threaten. I'm saying DO IT.
Nah. You're just saying, and that's all you're doing. How are you going to build a sufficiently large body of the populace so that your threat (if we can even call it that) carries any weight?
Well...?
Well, yes.... But the point is, in order to do anything about this, requires a broad consensus over a significant number of people.
I don't think you even need to call it secession. If a group of governors told the federal government. You are acting outside the authority of the Constitution. We don't need your money and we aren't following you laws and we will forcibly remove any federal agents you send to our state. You would need a good issue(Obamacare, or the Bundy stand off part 1 come to mind) to pull this off. Like the government shut down that didn't cause all of the panic that was expected, the feds would find out they are not as important as they think.
Since the states will never even consider leaving the federal feed trough it's just a pipe dream. The time when men couldn't be bought is long past. You will never get men of integrity elected they just aren't entertaining enough in the outrage and laugh a minute reality TV show that is politics.
In short, we've been had.
You sell the idea.
You solicit support and gain allies. As with ANY political movement.
You do NOT pick a small, useless patch and make a stand. It didn't work for John Brown at Harper's Ferry; it didn't work for various resistance groups and landowners in recent years. You solicit wide support from people who count.
You put the idea out. You get people talking. You explain it in reasonable terms. If you have contact with political people, you work them. You sell it to them.
And when there is the support, the State Legislature pulls the trigger.
Obviously I, alone, cannot do this. But I do not think subjugation and surrender are noble, either. I'm more afraid of what this morphing government in Washington is becoming, than I am of hard work.
And if you can do all that... you're gonna be in charge, anyway. So why go the secession route?
You sell the idea.
You solicit support and gain allies. As with ANY political movement.
You solicit wide support from people who count.
You put the idea out. You get people talking. You explain it in reasonable terms. If you have contact with political people, you work them. You sell it to them.
And when there is the support, the State Legislature pulls the trigger.
But I do not think subjugation and surrender are noble, either. I'm more afraid of what this morphing government in Washington is becoming, than I am of hard work.
You think the States are sovereign today?
Can a state expel illegal immigrants, here in violation of all laws? NO.
Can a state stop the Federal seizure of resource-rich private or State land? NO.
Can a state run its own SCHOOLS the way it chooses? NO.
Can a state cut off welfare cheats using its own laws? NO.
Can a state require the same identification of voters that the Federal government requires of purchasers of alcohol? NO.
Can a state allow adults age 18, 19, 20, to BUY alcohol? NO.
Can a state protect its citizen-residents from confiscatory Federal income and other taxes? NO.
Why, again, should a state want to Secede, as it is reduced to an impotent administrative arm of Washington?
The state legislatures all folded like cheap suits opposing Obamacare's imposition. You think they are going to risk political lives, favors, life, limb and federal subsidies to tell DC to pound sand? Let's be realistic here. NOT. Gonna. Happen.
And again: if you can build the broad consensus you require for your secession, don't you already have the means to change all those "NO's" to "YES?" Secession wouldn't be necessary.
Have you followed what happened in Arizona, regarding State law which MIRRORED Federal laws, regarding immigration?
The Federal Courts ordered Arizona to stop enforcing State (and by wording, Federal) laws.
Have you followed what happened in Texas? Federal courts have overturned Texas (and other states') Voter ID laws.
It is not just a matter of states doing something. THEY ARE STOPPED BY THE FEDERAL LEVIATHAN.
Have you followed what happened in Arizona, regarding State law which MIRRORED Federal laws, regarding immigration?"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" -Andrew Jackson.
The Federal Courts ordered Arizona to stop enforcing State (and by wording, Federal) laws.
Have you followed what happened in Texas? Federal courts have overturned Texas (and other states') Voter ID laws.
It is not just a matter of states doing something. THEY ARE STOPPED BY THE FEDERAL LEVIATHAN.
Whatever. You're really trying hard to miss a pretty obvious point.
I'm not saying, threaten. I'm saying DO IT.
In an orderly way. Why do we want Secession? To preserve law and order at the local and State levels. To prevent Federal goons from doing neighborhood searches for guns, gold, stored foodstuffs, young girls, and anything else that would be of interest to them.
Not saying you get twelve of your closest friends to mass up with guns at the state lines. The STATE LEGISLATURES have to do this. With, of course, consent of the State citizens - which the State legislature is going to have to solicit. Or else claim emergency powers to enact Secession.
Obviously it won't work everywhere.
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" -Andrew Jackson.
A lot depends on the Governor of the State. How much? When Virginia finally passed an act of secession, Maryland had been poised to vote on such, but from a strategic standpoint had to wait for Virginia. Had Virginia not seceded and Maryland had, that would not have gone well.
Neither did what happened.
With the Federal District between the two, Maryland militiamen were told to bring their arms to their armories, leave them, and await the call out by the Governor.
It never came, as the governor was in cahoots with Lincoln.
Maryland was invaded by the state armies (militias) of Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
Maryland was a very Southern State, a slave state, and leaned heavily toward secession. That invasion was met with vicious riots, especially in Baltimore, rail lines were pried up and bridges burnt to slow the progress of the Northern troops. The MD state legislature was placed under house arrest at Fort McHenry and not allowed to vote on secession until many terms had expired and the legislators had been replaced with ones more sympathetic to the Federal Forces.
Marylanders went to Virginia and signed up to fight for the Confederacy. Not all, but consider that 4 (four) people voted for Lincoln in the MD County I grew up in. They were, as I have been told, asked to leave. Two had tragic fires. Maryland remained an occupied state through the war.
(The state song makes reference to the Baltimore riots, and was written during the war by an expatriate Marylander in Louisiana.)
A couple of lessons there.
Whoever people would have lead must absolutely be trustworthy. DO NOT TRUST A POLITICIAN.
The Governor of Maryland was not trustworthy, from the standpoint of those Marylanders who would defend their home soil against aggression. John C. Breckinridge had carried the state in the election, and a glance at the election map of 1860 http://www.270towin.com/1860_Election/interactive_map (http://www.270towin.com/1860_Election/interactive_map) pretty much tells one where sentiments lay, and the Governor's actions ran contrary to those. Had the call-up been in more local hands, a defence might have been mounted.
Some may argue what happened was best, I will not argue that one way or the other. I am providing an historical example of betrayal by political leadership, and to anyone who might find this relevant, it is likely they would be on the side betrayed, as they would be looking at it from the vantage point of a secessionist.
Do not ever leave your kit. Keep your arms and gear where YOU can get them, and not under the control of someone else. Had the Militia been able to meet the invasion, (Their battle rattle was locked away in the armories) the whole conflict may have been much shorter and had a different result.
We have veered off topic here.What does anyone think about seeing if I can preserve secession discussion in a new topic?Sounds good to me.
Sounds good to me.
There is always chaos surrounding war.I really don't see advocates of States' Rights forcing other States to do anything but plot their own course.
There as additional chaos with Lincoln's war, as it intentionally miscast and sold as a war of abolition. In fact it was a war of Federal supremacy over the States. Had things gone just a little bit differently, and the Slave States controlled (again) Washington, it could have been the Free States being occupied and forced into accepting the legal protection of slavery.
The issue, at core, was that of States' Rights. And of the right to exit the Union into which they voluntarily joined into.
We have veered off topic here.What does anyone think about seeing if I can preserve secession discussion in a new topic?We're almost always off topic on this thread.
Not saying you get twelve of your closest friends to mass up with guns at the state lines. The STATE LEGISLATURES have to do this. With, of course, consent of the State citizens - which the State legislature is going to have to solicit. Or else claim emergency powers to enact Secession.
I think I will be voting from a rooftop if that happens, but the sad part is that many who claim they will do so won't even bother to follow what is going on enough to prevent it.
Or...we can just slink back home and pray for a humble spirit to bear it...waiting for the Social Justice Warriors, protected by Federal Marshalls, to hit our neighborhoods one-by-one...searching for the People's gold, hoarded food stores, illegally-kept fuel, the People's young nubile females waiting for a Higher Use.
Take your pick. It was for FAR less provocation that the Colonists signed the Declaration.
@Smokin Joe
"God knows what he is doing!"
I see this in your tagline. What people need to do is to get themselves right with God. The people who have turned away from God and are trying to drag the rest of us down with them need to be dealt with.
@Smokin Joe@don-o , too.
"God knows what he is doing!"
I see this in your tagline. What people need to do is to get themselves right with God. The people who have turned away from God and are trying to drag the rest of us down with them need to be dealt with.
We have veered off topic here.What does anyone think about seeing if I can preserve secession discussion in a new topic?I think the original thread has spawned more spin-offs than a successful sitcom!
@JustPassinThru
Right. Petition the state legislators. And leave them one option. Submit to the will of the people.
The Political Class needs to be abolished.
You're still just saying things, though. "Oh, well, we'll just threaten to secede! That'll show 'em!"
But you've again left off the precise "how" of the matter. You'd need to get buy-in from a significant portion of the populace. But heck: if you're in a position to get that sort of buy-in, you've got the means of making a change without something so drastic as secession; in fact, you'd get a lot more buy-in from a lot more people if secession was not part of your sales pitch.
And again: if you can build the broad consensus you require for your secession, don't you already have the means to change all those "NO's" to "YES?" Secession wouldn't be necessary.
It would be far easier to build such a consensus in a few conservative states versus the entire US population.
But it takes patience -- which conservatives evidently lack.
True enough. Nevertheless: once you have the means and ability to build the consensus, it applies more broadly, too. But it takes patience -- which conservatives evidently lack.
Poll: Three out of five Texans support secession if Hillary becomes president
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/election/article/Poll-Three-out-of-five-Texans-support-secession-9146807.php
What results (with either candidate) would you expect in most every other state polls?
I'm not wasting my pixels on arguing the merits of secession. It's a ridiculous idea.
Cheers to you then.
A lot of Texans disagree with you. But that isn't a popular opinion nationwide.
And the best way to accomplish that is to break their rice bowl! We do that by insisting on passage of the Fairtax bill (HR25/S122) currently before both houses of congress!
Once the Income tax and the IRS have been eliminated there will be little left for current inhabitants of K Street in Washington to do and the problem will be largely solved!
http://fairtax.org
I doubt that it's actually popular with most Texans, either. But there will always be the crazies who want to think differently (remember the so-called Republic of Texas back in the '90s that was gonna create a bow wave of righteous dissent?).
Glad you brought that up. That's exactly HOW....NOT to do it.
First, it has to happen within the legal framework of the States. To preserve law, order and structure locally. And to allay the fears of persons with no other opinions on the matter.
In any controversial move such as this one, opinion will cut three ways. There will be Yeas and Nays and those with no opinion - except they do not want discomfort or cost. The Revolutionary War was fought with MINORITY support - the opponents and those who didn't care, probably outnumbered those with a zeal for independence. But enough were strong-minded enough; and opponents also opinionated enough, that the war was fought; opponents pressured to leave to British territories north; and the war won.
The promise of the end to asinine laws handed down by outsiders and protected by deranged liberal FedGov judges, plus the tax savings, would probably be enough to leave those with no opinion, hold their peace or even support it.
I doubt that it's actually popular with most Texans, either. But there will always be the crazies who want to think differently (remember the so-called Republic of Texas back in the '90s that was gonna create a bow wave of righteous dissent?).
I thought you were not wasting your pixels?
Do you have another source of polling data, or just your gut feel?
I'm not wasting my pixels on arguing the merits of secession. It's a ridiculous idea.
Do you?
It would be far easier to build such a consensus in a few conservative states versus the entire US population.I was talking to the missus last night about this. It's almost as if people need to start planning now and pick one state. We both love Idaho, but Texas was the obvious choice. Start moving in as many Tea Party types as you can into the state and get involved in grass roots activism. Sounds a little crazy to freewheeling American, but look up the history of the redounding of Israel. Decades of work went into making possible what happened on May 14, 1948.
I was talking to the missus last night about this. It's almost as if people need to start planning now and pick one state. We both love Idaho, but Texas was the obvious choice. Start moving in as many Tea Party types as you can into the state and get involved in grass roots activism. Sounds a little crazy to freewheeling American, but look up the history of the redounding of Israel. Decades of work went into making possible what happened on May 14, 1948.
Again this is definite pipe dream, but if we can't build consensus across the board due to the public schools etc, then our only other option is to figure out how to concentrate what we have.
The poll results referenced in the article about 3 out 5 Texans:
So I was correct. The poll apparently says not even a majority of Trump supporters would support secession, and only 26% of all voters would -- words to a pollster being cheap, indeed.
A journey of a 1,000 miles begins with the first steps.
Not everyone agreed when the colonies first signed the Declaration of Independence, not all agreed when Independence was won.
And the first talk of Independence didn't start in 1776.
Meh.
God Bless you!
Thanks: I need all the help I can get.
But really: this secession twaddle you guys are bandying about is just silly talk. There are other, better, ways of dealing with the problems. Unfortunately, those things take time and effort, and you're a "conservative," which makes you impatient.
And again, the whole secession thing is a stupid idea. An idea of Trumpian stupidity. Beyond Trumpian, even.
Here you are talking about creating consensus -- the very thing you need in order to make change without secession.
But really: this secession twaddle you guys are bandying about is just silly talk.
King George's advisors would have enjoyed you back in 1776, as they were saying exactly the same thing.
People also said this about Brexit.
One state that takes a stand here will cause a ripple effect that will swing this country's direction immensely.
To me, that is worth it.
you completely ignore the situation in Washington.
They are IMMUNE to consensus. They don't seek the consent of the governed - they RULE over us. How plain could we have MADE it that we didn't want Obamacare, TPP, a thousand other expensive and antidemocratic edicts and programs? THESE ARE BEING FORCED ON US. And the cost will come due; and the taxes ALSO forced on us.
We have been trying to get States to join in an Article V Convention - and once again, a few elitists are serving as roadblocks. THIS HAS TO STOP, and the Print-And-Spend Political Elites will not stop. They're awash in money and in cronies seeking to take government money and give their own as advance investment.
The check on Washington was always the States, through the Senate. The Senate was to be filled with State appointees. That is no longer true and there is no consensus anymore and no desire to seek one.
Well, King George's advisors (he, himself, being insane) were idiots. Not unlike our current ruling class (comprised of both parties, and of the bureaucracy). In reality the American Revolution was eminently avoidable, though doing so would obviously have required a significant political sea-change.
The thing is, we're not really in the same position as the colonists. We do have access to the means of making political changes -- but doing so requires a lot of effort and patience as we educate the public and slowly eat away at the status quo.
But conservatives always seem to want that One Big Battle, the winning of which is supposed to save the world forevermore. We never learn -- we just rest on our laurels while the left regroups and gnaws away at our gains until they're gone. Secession is just another version of the One Big Battle.
King George's advisors would have enjoyed you back in 1776, as they were saying exactly the same thing.
People also said this about Brexit.
One state that takes a stand here will cause a ripple effect that will swing this country's direction immensely.
To me, that is worth it.
Let's put a twist on this convo by posing this question:
What if DC runs out of money?
When the inevitable collapse happens and America makes what happened with Weimar look like a picnic at the beach, you will learn firsthand how thin the veneer of civilization really is.
The fissures of multi-division and blame are already present and working on the carcass of the nation.
When there is real pain - vengeance will be sought and those stirring up the desperate will be able to do things we only read about happening in the Middle East and parts of Europe.
And that is not even taking into consideration what the enemies now amongst us are going to do.
It is time to prepare our states, those of us who live in ones that are still basically conservative, to prepare for that day that is coming quickly.
And inevitably...
Good post.
For whatever it's worth, it is my humble opinion that very little of what has thus far been posted on this thread entitled "States Rights" has anything at all to do with that subject!It's a spin off from another thread. You know how those spin off shows go. :laugh:
For whatever it's worth, it is my humble opinion that very little of what has thus far been posted on this thread entitled "States Rights" has anything at all to do with that subject!
For whatever it's worth, it is my humble opinion that very little of what has thus far been posted on this thread entitled "States Rights" has anything at all to do with that subject!
You are NEVER going to be able to put a stop to any of that, or even slow it down via civil means.
Period.
History teaches that tyrants and a ruling class will NEVER yield their power and wealth streams from those they yank it from without the threat and use of force. The lawless are not going to yield to new laws they already exempt themselves from. They will also never yield to a people demanding they surrender their power and theft industry via the institutions they have corrupted.
Few to none are willing to risk what would be necessary to even amount to the 3% that actively engaged and resisted the Crown.
You are also forgetting that liberty cannot exist without the moral and religious foundations that established us. Since that no longer exists in this culture - and this people are no longer governed by God, the idea of restraining the tyranny of men is ridiculous. Only when a people are spiritually ready will God grant such efforts of liberty the victory after much hardship and bloodshed.
History teaches that a people who have become what we now are, WANT slavery. They WANT the 'security' of dependence. A people who make government their god cannot and will not be capable of freedom.
Speaking directly to the tyranny most willingly suffer and refuse to call tyranny, the majority of those even looking at the reality of our situation are counting the costs and not willing to risk what would be necessary to rectify it. Lives, fortunes and sacred honor things. I cannot even get any traction among likeminded folks to agree to simply refuse to comply with the Beast. They say they gotta eat and pay the bills and cannot risk punitive acts for refusing to go along.
If Christians themselves would not stand up against encroachments of evil upon their free exercise of faith - why would we think they would stand up and risk their lives to resist what society and their tyrannical government impose on them? How many of them are going to throw Romans 13 in your face for even discussing this subject?
Let us face the reality of the ground now before us. We're going the way of Rome and every other Republic that fell. You cannot reverse that, despite the screaming of our normalcy biases against accepting what is staring at us in the face. Defeatist? Not if you want to survive, and that is what we really need to focus a remnant to get their minds wired to do.
We need to survive the consequences this government and people have already sown against us. Consequences that have yet to be experienced by us, before we can begin the hard work of reeducating a morally degenerate and selfish people to do as you advocate. But we are not going to just magically vote to return ourselves to what was already lost.
"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it." - John Adams, July 7, 1777
That statement by Adams is not only historically accurate - it is biblically accurate as well.
What is before us is to resist if we would retain what liberty this people and their government seek to abolish. AND then we need to explain in very painful language, the reasons we ended up where we have.
You cannot move to righteousness and liberty without repentance, and a people who see nothing wrong with how we got here, are not capable of becoming the vanguards of whatever liberty we win for our posterity.
@INVARWell I doubt they are advertising anything if they are.
Maybe this subject has been broached. I think that High ranking military people who have been forced out since GWB have been making plans for the inevitability of an armed insurrection. How deep that goes or how widespread I wouldn't know. Or if such even exists. But in many countries it is the military involved to a high degree in these matters. So if such an organization popped up how many people would answer a/the call?
Well I doubt they are advertising anything if they are.
No. They are not. What I am asking is if in the event of an armed insurrection say, in Texas, and an organization like this decided it was time to make their move and put out a general call to arms nationwide , how many people would respond?
I would like to think certain governors are in on it.
People tend to think of themselves as solitary in this, but I don't think that would be the case. I surely don't want to be the first penguin off the floe, but if everybody was encouraged to jump in at once, the action could be stupendous.
There has to be a critical mass.
Hillary's mass appears to be about critical. Her election (gargle, gag, spit) would be enough to push a button. The only way she is going to win is through fraud. That may be enough of a catalyst.
It's a mis-titled thread that the mods created when stripping Don-O's original post of the discussion that centered on the idea of secession.
It is already self-evident that the idea of States' Rights no longer actually exists or applies in practice. The federal Beast can and will impose itself in issues it has no authority to do so; i.e.: nationalizing the police forces of the country. Camel's nose under the tent and all that having been accomplished already.
It should be better entitled: Resistance, Secession, Sovereignty and State's Rights.
edit: well since ether started with my comment to begin this thread, I found out I can actually change the title. Which I did.
Now we can discuss the whole gamut of subjects and ideas surrounding the idea of 'now what' to burgeoning tyranny.
I don't disagree with many of the facts as you lay them out; but I disagree with the conclusions. As well, I resist that passivity, violently.
We are going the way Argentina and Chile and Cuba and Ethiopia and Germany and Italy and dozens of other nation-states have gone in the past. We KNOW where it leads.
It leads to increasinly-violent repression; towards gulags and slave-labor camps and engineered famines and wars done to use up useless cannon fodder. It winds up with mass executions, either for trumped-up crimes, done to spread fear among those not yet arrested...or else for pure ethnic or ideological genocide.
And all that is necessary for it to continue and to step up the pace, is for good people to do nothing - to hide and cower and pray for a humble spirit to bear it.
The MORAL duty of the hour is to try to STOP it - with the means available.
It is not yet the time to hoist the Gadsden Flag and raise a pitchfork. That way leads to quick obliteration, at this point.
NOW is the time to use the political tools available to either stop this deranged juggernaut, or else cut one's home, one's community, one's city, one's STATE...FROM this madness.
Secession is one such plan. Not the only one but an obvious starting point.
No, I disagree there.
The only way she's going to win is through TRUMP.
But that's off-topic on this thread.
...
If not now, when? After we are all in chains and the examples have been made of those obliterated souls who dared resist so as to cause any and all who oppose tyranny to go silent and dark?
@JustPassinThru @INVAR
" Political resistance is a way to telegraph the message."
Right. Telegraph it. Let them see you coming from afar. Resistance is futile.
obama may have an October Surprise for us. Or later. That reminds me. I need some new long johns.
How came many unconstitutional powers to be exercised by the crown, and suffered by parliament? for instance, the dispensing power—the answer is obvious; it required the wisdom of ages, and accumulated efforts of patriotism, to bring the constitution its is (sic) present point of perfection; a thorough reformation could not be effected at once; upon the whole fabrick is stately, and magnificent, yet a perfect symmetry, and correspondence of parts is wanting; in some places, the pile appears to be deficient in strength, in others the rude and unpolished taste of our Gothic ancestors is discoverable.[2]
Since it seems this thread may go on for a while, here's something from a site that always has thought provoking and informative content.
An article 5 convention of States could lay the groundwork for proof that all civil means had been exhausted. The trick would be to get media to present that as it is, an attempt by Americans to rein in a government run amok, and not as some bunch of angry kooks. That will require patient and calm education of the American People as to just what their rights are supposed to be.
@INVARThey did that with Roe, and that O Hare woman. First they got God out of the classroom (dumped prayer by ruling the 1st confers a freedom from religion even being mentioned). Then, after pushing the source of our unalienable rights (Almighty God) from public view, went after the first-mentioned unalienable Right, that being the Right to Life. From there Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were downhill...
"...That no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God: All such disobedience is lawful and glorious; particularly, if persons refuse to comply with any legal establishment of religion, because it is a gross perversion and corruption… All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void: And therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime."
So they push the homo agenda. Or abortion. And with this they confuse what an individual's rights really are.
This people no longer understand liberty, and often - do not want it. They want license and provision and safety nets, they DO NOT WANT responsibility and the opportunity to prosper or to fail.
Perhaps when liberty no longer exists at all, a remnant will remember what it was and will do what they can to attempt to regain it under a new and different system, not the one that has been perverted beyond redemption.
And what makes many persons, especially urban minorities, totally unfit for today's world...may make them MORE fit for this post-Christianity, post-American world. They have raw strength and they have the ability to be brutal - without any empathy or moral checks.
Whoa, boy. Steady there!
If it goes that far, it will be a thousand years of darkness. AT LEAST.
...Their people came from a continent that NEVER HAS hosted an elaborate civilization. Only European colonists brought it to them; and even after ejecting the colonists and their rule, they were unable even to KEEP IT GOING in any state of order. And they may be the ones who, genetically, thrive. It will be more than a thousand years, and probably more than 10,000.
Would you like to review YouTube videos of Ferguson or Baltimore or now Milwaukee?Organized, ruthless, tribal (gangs), no qualm at violence, entitled (to whatever they can grab), without conscience--except toward members of their group--if that, vicious, and filled with hatred for those they have been told are the ones holding them back from day one. Ruthless, lean, and mean..
Those are not overly nice people. Those are not the kind you want joining your church.
But those are the kind that will survive, mostly at the expense of others, in post-Apocalypse America.
I think one state just beginning the process, taking a vote of the population, would lend some effort into a few more politicians taking states rights more seriously.
@ Idaho_Cowboy
Oh and hey. Idaho is where the Texans will be headed.
Why would Texans like me go to a place that protects non-Americans that rape our daughters?
They did that with Roe, and that O Hare woman. First they got God out of the classroom (dumped prayer by ruling the 1st confers a freedom from religion even being mentioned). Then, after pushing the source of our unalienable rights (Almighty God) from public view, went after the first-mentioned unalienable Right, that being the Right to Life. From there Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were downhill...
Madalyn Murray O'Hair (née Mays; April 13, 1919 – September 29, 1995),[1] who also used multiple pseudonyms (her most preferred being M. Bible),[2] was an American atheist activist, founder of American Atheists, and the organization's president from 1963 to 1986. She created the first issues of American Atheist Magazine. One of her sons, Jon Garth Murray, became the nominal president of the organization from 1986 to 1995, but she remained de facto president during these nine years.
O'Hair is best known for the Murray v. Curlett lawsuit, which led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling ending official Bible-reading in American public schools in 1963. This came just one year after the Supreme Court prohibited officially sponsored prayer in schools in Engel v. Vitale. After she founded the American Atheists and won Murray v. Curlett, she achieved attention to the extent that in 1964 Life magazine referred to her as "the most hated woman in America".[3][4]
In 1995, O'Hair, her son Jon, and her granddaughter Robin disappeared from Austin, Texas, and were kidnapped, murdered, and mutilated by David Roland Waters, a convicted felon out on parole, and fellow career criminals Gary Karr and Danny Fry. Waters was an employee of the American Atheists from February 1993 to April 1994, first as a typesetter and later as office manager.[5]
Organized, ruthless, tribal (gangs), no qualm at violence, entitled (to whatever they can grab), without conscience--except toward members of their group--if that, vicious, and filled with hatred for those they have been told are the ones holding them back from day one. Ruthless, lean, and mean..
facing...
People who have been conditioned away from violence, who are too caught up in petty squabbles to have an organizing principle, who have been conditioned to not be racist, who have no overt grudge, who have been raised to treat others well, and to be nonviolent, who will likely puke the first time they have to shoot someone or go into shock at the sight of one of their own getting shot. Overweight, out of shape, and generally nonaggressive folks in the 'burbs.
Not a pretty picture, but the latter outnumber the former, and will get their mad on, given reason. I am reminded of a quote about waking a sleeping dragon.
It would be best if all remain civil, not that they will.
Because you are already there.
Wrong. I am not in Idaho.
You are bringing up the rationale my wife and I used to decide to retire outside the big city and get into the country.I grew up out in 'the sticks', but towns grew to meet up. I have found rural folks to be of decent character almost everywhere with rare exceptions good God-fearing folks. I'm in North Dakota, where towns are 'rural' by most definitions. Only the 'big cities' are over 50K in population.
Am sure the geologist in Smokin Joe will do the same when given the opportunity.
I find the rural people of solid character and honest compared to urban contemporaries.
Would you like to review YouTube videos of Ferguson or Baltimore or now Milwaukee?I thought the church was for sinners. :pondering:
Those are not overly nice people. Those are not the kind you want joining your church.
But those are the kind that will survive, mostly at the expense of others, in post-Apocalypse America.
You mean here? http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/08/07/pamela-geller-shocking-new-details-emerge-idaho-muslim-migrant-rape-case/some journalist got burned on that one. As far as I can make out no one was raped, no one was stabbed, and it the weren't from Syria as originally reported, and the incident was handled. A lot of people saw a story that fit the narrative they were pushing.
Why would Texans like me go to a place that protects non-Americans that rape our daughters?
You are bringing up the rationale my wife and I used to decide to retire outside the big city and get into the country.
Am sure the geologist in Smokin Joe will do the same when given the opportunity.
I find the rural people of solid character and honest compared to urban contemporaries.
I thought the church was for sinners. :pondering:
I am really tired of the incessant negative nature of people who say some things cannot be done.
I really meant it when I talked about our Founders. They were unbelievable, God-fearing individuals who did what no one in the world, and I mean NO ONE would have thought possible.
Those today who say 'It is now different' have no idea that people have been doing the almost impossible since Biblical times.
All they have to do is to study the Bible.
You will be when you git up there and fix that mess.
@IsailedawayfromFR
I am only teasing you. I live in Idaho. My wife has some relatives in Twin Falls. I have a bunch just down the road. I'll have her FB some of them and get their drift on what is happening there. How does that sound?
@Smokin Joe@bigheadfred I don't know, Fred. I haven't been following that closely. Eight States so far as of July, but that was a while ago.
I read today that 29 states have made application for an Article V convention. Is that an update or old news?
And the best way to accomplish that is to break their rice bowl!
I was told FairTax was revenue neutral. It was also still progressive.I prefer a flat tax. The prebate is the biggest reason.
That prebate idea is R-worded
I prefer a flat tax. The prebate is the biggest reason.
I was told FairTax was revenue neutral. It was also still progressive.
That prebate idea is R-worded
I prefer a flat tax. The prebate is the biggest reason.
If you want a consumption tax, effectively a Federal Sales Tax, then do that. Eliminate any tax on food, medical care, medicine and medical supplies, energy and motor fuels (which already have an excise tax), residences, water and sewer services, and sanitation (garbage collection).
The only opportunities for fraud in such a system would be limited.
Issuance of a check or payment on the basis of an average cost of something does nothing much for people with a severe medical condition who would otherwise pay more taxes. It does nothing for people who live in colder climates (or hotter ones) who will pay more taxes for energy just to keep comfortable (or alive in the more severe colder climates). They will pay a disparate burden on top of the already higher expenses, and the prebate won't offset that.But that is NOT what the fairtax prebate does in any shape, form or fashion! The fairtax simply untaxes ALL of one's spending up to the poverty level! That's it!
What a prebate does do, is open the door to fraud. It also continues to employ an army of people, if for no other reason than to keep track of address changes, something the 330,000,000 plus people in the US do on an average of every 5 years. If you don't have to 'refund' any money because you didn't tax it in the first place, you can eliminate legions of Federal jobs and save the taxpayer a grundle.Baloney! 100% USDA choice! I suggest that you read the bill and learn how it ACTUALLY works.
There will always be some people who spend more on their primary residence, their food, etc. than others. They'll eat lobster rather than oatmeal. So be it. Lobster fisherman need to make a living, too. They'll live in bigger and fancier houses, but they will spend more on the taxable trimmings and furnishings in those houses and pay more taxes that way. They won't be sitting around on old fruit crates on a bare subfloor.
If you really, really want it to be fair, just don't tax the necessities in the first place.
If the meaning of "income" hadn't been twisted to include the currency exchanged with a worker for skills or labor, (that is an exchange, value for value, not "income"), the tax system wouldn't be the mess it is anyway.
FairTax is an interesting concept. And totally workable - as far as that goes.
The PROBLEM is, we ALREADY HAVE an Income Tax. The Income Tax MUST be abolished, WITH CERTAINTY, before a FairTax-like system is set up - else we'll wind up with TWO taxes, and the FairTax will quickly become a VAT. MOAR taxes.
A flat tax with a high personal exemption, would be done without this concern; without reworking Point-of-Sale tax structures; done by a simple Congressional vote.
IF. IF the Career Politicians were removed. IF the K Street Lobbying Army were made irrelevant.
The only realistic way we'll get a Flat Tax, is if we first have an Article V Convention that forces TERM LIMITS on Congress and returns the Senate to the States.
The income tax IS abolished! Done away with in it's entirety along with the IRS the instant the Fairtax becomes law! It's part of the bill!
And that's probably why this bill isn't getting any traction. See my comments above about a flat tax.
Term Limits, imposed by an Article V Convention, are the only way we'll have any meaningful tax reform.
FWIW, I favor a flat tax simply for its simplicity. FairTax has complications and a lot of collection-costs forced on merchants. And it STILL has the danger of being morphed into a VAT.
A flat tax does not have that danger. And if Term Limits are cemented into the Constitution, K Street will be emptied forever. No more career hustlers doing Great Deals™®© with lifelong "Public Servants."
That, IMHO, is where we need to be pouring our energy. That, and exploration of Secession - as I've said before.
The fairtax is a flat rate tax so you must be talking about favoring a flat rate INCOME Tax! And because it is an income tax it doesn't solve ANYTHING! No income tax! be they flat, round or square!
Why not? First there's the changeover cost. Second there's the regressive nature of a POS tax - it taxes consumption, and someone living off retirement savings is AGAIN taxed.
A flat-rate income tax requires no such changeover - just a layoff of the hundreds of thousands of IRS drones. It costs merchants nothing. And the end result for those who are working is the same; and it doesn't penalize those who're at the end of their lives or otherwise living with reduced or no income.
Who gets to decide what your necessities are? Under the fairtax that would be YOU!nope. Nature, thermodynamics, physics, decide what the necessities are.
The fairtax is the ONLY proposal out there that completely untaxes the poor and allows them the opportunity to grab hold to that first rung on the ladder of success!Please explain how not taxing the essentials for living doesn't untax the poor?
But that is NOT what the fairtax prebate does in any shape, form or fashion!The prebate ensures legions of Federal employees, just to administer it. why 'give money back' on the presumption people would spend it?
The fairtax simply untaxes ALL of one's spending up to the poverty level! That's it!Why you do, up to a point, whether or not they are taxed. So who decides what the tax should be on an 'poverty level' of them?
Baloney! 100% USDA choice! I suggest that you read the bill and learn how it ACTUALLY works.
Once again, WHO decides what my necessities are?
Why not? First there's the changeover cost. Second there's the regressive nature of a POS tax - it taxes consumption, and someone living off retirement savings is AGAIN taxed.
A flat-rate income tax requires no such changeover - just a layoff of the hundreds of thousands of IRS drones. It costs merchants nothing. And the end result for those who are working is the same; and it doesn't penalize those who're at the end of their lives or otherwise living with reduced or no income.
nope. Nature, thermodynamics, physics, decide what the necessities are. Please explain how not taxing the essentials for living doesn't untax the poor? The prebate ensures legions of Federal employees, just to administer it. why 'give money back' on the presumption people would spend it? Why you do, up to a point, whether or not they are taxed. So who decides what the tax should be on an 'poverty level' of them?
Someone has to decide, after all that is what the prebate is supposed to offset the taxes on.
I can pretty much guarantee you it would be someone who lives in a place which is far warmer than where I live is in January, who might decide we don't need the extra heat to offset the subzero weather outside, so we have to pay taxes on that. It isn't a luxury. Spend the Alabama poverty level here for heat and you won't have to worry about taxes, you'll freeze to death.
Someone has to decide what is 'poverty level' for heat. Where will they live?
Maybe someone would decide someone doesn't 'need' medical care. We're already on the verge of that, but the taxes on chemotherapy drugs wouldn't be offset by the prebate, but someone else would get the money 'back'. That's just wrong, kicking someone when they are down, and giving away resources they might really need to someone who doesn't.
If someone runs a light and t-bones your car, you're likely going to need more than the poverty level of health care, and you won't have a lot of choice in the matter. Under the 'Fair' tax, the uninsured illegal alien who hit you won't be picking up the tab, so you get to pay the tax on staying alive and any reconstructive and therapeutic medical care. Sorry, but that's just wrong. Just don't tax it.
Leave medicine out of it, and so what if a few untaxed boob jobs get through? They'll spend money on new underwear (and the rest of the wardrobe) and pay the tax on that.
How do you establish "poverty level" of health care (all the really poor people I know either didn't get any or were on medicaid, but that would put the 'poverty level' at zero.)
Which of Michelle Obama's minions would decide what a 'poverty level' of food is? Oh, SNAP! they don't pay it. So someone else would have to decide who needed to eat what, regardless of where they live or what they do for a living. Caloric expenditure can vary greatly, just to keep the same body weight, depending on where you live, how much physical exertion is involved, and again, that climate thingy, especially if you can't turn the heat up.
Food, shelter, water, medical care are all things we have generally found necessary to life. Without the first three you will die. The fourth is something we all need, sooner or later. While over 100,000 people visit emergency rooms annually over injuries sustained while golfing, there are a lot more people in dire need of less optional emergency care.
I added energy, because heat and the ability to transport yourself to places to get food (and the ability to keep and prepare it) are important. You can choose between a clunker and a limo and pay the tax on that, but the fuel should not be any more taxed than it is.
We have disagreed on this topic before. You touched on the truth when you said without the check in the mailbox, people wouldn't go for it. The K street types working for the Public Employee's Unions wouldn't go for the job reductions, either. There are enough IRS offices and clearinghouses scattered around key congressional districts that it'd never get through Congress without guaranteeing IRS jobs. I get it.
But I think it is counterproductive.
Just tax what isn't a necessity, and that will have to be figured out to determine what the "poverty level" of necessities is, anyway.
Yes we have and apparently we will continue to disagree! I will take FREEDOM over slavery every single time and for so long as we continue to abide the Marxist income tax and it's attendant IRS none of us will ever be truly FREE ever again!I'm all for freedom. The government doesn't need my bank account information to send me a check. They don't need my address every month, they don't need to tax the exchange rate on my labor and skills, there's a lot they don't need. They don't need to tax my cell phone at 14%--the electromagnetic spectrum didn't cost a dime, and who said it belonged to them anyway?
What you don't seem to understand is that under the present system the cost of EVERYTHING produced in this country is hugely inflated due to the fact that ALL the taxes and ALL of the compliance costs attendant to them are rolled up in them and YOU pay it all at the market!What do you think I don't understand about that? The cost of everything in this country is inflated by a bloated Federal Government which taxes us at every opportunity to make a token effort at funding itself.
I'm all for freedom. The government doesn't need my bank account information to send me a check. They don't need my address every month, they don't need to tax the exchange rate on my labor and skills, there's a lot they don't need. They don't need to tax my cell phone at 14%--the electromagnetic spectrum didn't cost a dime, and who said it belonged to them anyway? What do you think I don't understand about that? The cost of everything in this country is inflated by a bloated Federal Government which taxes us at every opportunity to make a token effort at funding itself.
Bigun, I don't see how you are going to get rid of the IRS. No matter what kind of tax is collected, someone is going to count the money, look for cheats, etc. They are still chasing moonshiners in the hills over taxes. They still check for dyed diesel fuel in the vehicles around here, over taxes. They still chase 'bootleg' cigarettes over taxes. There won't be any shortage of revenuers, unless you fundamentally change the tax structure. We already have people collecting taxes, and people sending a pittance back every year (just not to every body every month). Eliminate one leg of that (the one that sends money back) and you eliminate a bunch of employees. Reduce the calculations involved and the paperwork, and you cut even more. Don't tax the first XXXXX dollars, a flat tax on the rest is one way to do it (flat tax), or along the lines of your idea, just don't tax food, water, housing, the energy to heat it, fuel for personal (noncommercial) use and medical care. No prebate required, the necessities won't be taxed. Tax the rest, from beanie babies and pet rocks to classic Packards, and you have a consumption tax for the things beyond the necessities. People with big houses will fill them with expensive stuff, and pay the taxes on that. With the variation in real estate values, how would you decide what was the poverty level for that, anyway? The going rate for a welfare apartment in NYC or the rent for a 30 year old 14X70 in Bumfug?
People won't be taking buckets of untaxed warm air and selling them on the black market in the winter, they won't be buying food and selling it on the sly to other people who would just buy their own, anyway. They aren't going to sell the hardware in their leg on the black market, or hawk water in the 'hood.
And with no payment system, you will have eliminated an opportunity for fraud on a commercial scale.
I know I won't convince you, but it sure makes sense to me.
They won't be doing any of those things under the faritax either! Texas has the 12th largest economy on the planet and no income tax! NONE of that is happening here!Bigun, I'm aware of that. Our income tax is very low, by comparison to other states with one.
If you would just take the time and effort to actually READ some of the information I have linked to perhaps you might understand! This country did quite well for a very long time without either an income tax OR an IRS!
Otherwise, there will be a rollicking trade in damaged goods and spoilage and goods destroyed in shipping, out the back door, cash money, no tax.
Oh, there will be an IRS, and it will be even more invasive than ever.
We do have some, don't want more.
Don't we have that now? The best of both worlds.
Once the fairtax is passed into law that all ends and the thoroughly corrupt IRS, which is an absolute requirement for any form of income tax, is HISTORY!
The question is:
Why on earth would the country holding itself up to the world as the CHIEF opponents of Communism want anything at all to do with the very tax system that Communism endorses?
My question is what Presidential candidate said he would eliminate the IRS? That is the one to stand behind.
1. There are no changeover costs with the fairtax! 45 of the 50 states already have a sales tax in place! The only costs involved would be a few lines of code in the cash register's programming.
2. The Fairtax is NOT regressive! EVERYONE except possibly for those who are wealthy enough under the current scheme to be able to arrange their affairs in such a way as to have little or no "Income", will be better off under the fairtax!
https://fairtax-structure-psyclone.netdna-ssl.com/client_assets/fairtaxorg/media/attachments/56c4/afa1/6970/2d7c/197d/0000/56c4afa169702d7c197d0000.pdf?1455730593
My question is what Presidential candidate said he would eliminate the IRS? That is the one to stand behind.
Bigun, I'm aware of that. Our income tax is very low, by comparison to other states with one.
And while the country did very well without an income tax, it collected excise taxes and tariffs, which while they might not have called it the "IRS" were administered and collected and enforced by treasury agents. They won't go away, because they will be around to collect and enforce any Federal tax.
If there is a prebate, it will take an army to just keep track of the thirty million or more people who move each year and make sure their prebate goes to the right place.
Then you will have to enforce taxes at every point of sale in the US, and the only way to do that is to eliminate cash sales. Every sale of goods or services will have to be tracked to enforce the tax.
Otherwise, there will be a rollicking trade in damaged goods and spoilage and goods destroyed in shipping, out the back door, cash money, no tax.
Oh, there will be an IRS, and it will be even more invasive than ever.
My question is what Presidential candidate said he would eliminate the IRS? That is the one to stand behind.
You are COMPLETELY wrong in all of your those assumptions. Absolutely wrong! IMHO the Fairtax was once the key to unraveling the mess our federal government has become but it doesn't really matter one way or the other now does it? The Republic we were given is no more and will never be seen again on the face of the Earth.You're welcome, and thank you. We're on familiar terrain, anyway. I think we can agree to disagree.
Although we disagree I still thank you for the civil discussion.