This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

86 Comments For This Post

1. Lonny Eachus Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

   So, what are those 25 states where similar resolutions are pending? It is rather nasty of you to print that, then not tell us which states they are.

2. Arklight Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

   It’ll be a frosty day in a hot spot before the flaccid richards in the Nevada legislature get enough cumulative hair anywhere to tell the fed to get lost. We’ll probably be the sole remaining wholly owned subsidiary of DC.

3. Michael Boldin Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

   Lonny, our list of sovereignty resolutions are updated quite regularly here:
   http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/

4. Casey Truskunas Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

   I never thought I will see the day. Slowly we are begining to take our country back. Thank You God.

5. kat Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

   This is wonderful. Glory be to God, for our states leaders, they are people with courage and integrety, I solute you and thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you, a very happy Idahoian!

6. Trouble Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 4:31 pm

   I’ve been hoping to see the States come together on this issue. Now we see the beginnings of it.

7. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 4:53 pm

   WHAT IF THE FED IGNORES THE LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE STATES? HOW WOULD SECESSION BEGIN AND PROCEED? WOULD THE FEDERAL RESERVE REFUSE TO GIVE A SECEDED STATE ANY MONEY WITH WHICH TO RUN THE STATE GOVERNMENT?

8. trebor Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

   Where the hack have the states been for the last few decades? I’m glad for sure that this is happening now but it should have happened along time ago. The Federal Government will not give up power easily. Especially not now with the Democrats controlling all three branches.

9. Casey Truskunas Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

   Ms. Russell. If the fed ignores the legislation and “sends” us no money then we will not send them any money either. Our 1040 will be mailed to State treasurer instead of Washington. Bingo!!!

10. Arklight Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    Several States have Secession Resolutions passed by both houses and on the books (mostly to take effect is Martial Law is declared, but then there’s Vermont - - -). Ms Russell may be too young to remember when the fed was wanting motorcycle helmet laws in every State; California said ‘No’. The fed threatened to withold federal highway funds, to which Jerry Brown replied, ‘Fine. We’ll just keep all fuel and highway use taxes generated in California.’ The fed just lay down and shut up. There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides for federal plunder of State treasuries, nor is there anything that provides for the fed’s bribing of the people with their own money. Don’t worry about it, kiddo.

11. NewOrleansPuma Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 7:07 pm

    Casey Truskunas: Your Bingo Game idea is the first time in many many years that I want to hear that call…under the B..!
    Thanks to the 10th Amendment Center and to every state body that pursues this action. I see Thomas Jefferson smiling away! I intend to contact my legislatures and urge them to support this resolution. It is time. It is way beyond time.

12. NewOrleansPuma Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    sorry…legislators….!

13. Dale Zylman Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    God bless you for taking a stand. If the country was governed as intended under the constitution there would be no need for a “party” system. I’m sure it’ll be a while before the chicken shits(can I write this) in FL have the balls to introduce similar legislation.

14. Jim Lunsford Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    I was so very proud to read that in my state of Georgia. it passed the Senate by 42-1. That’s my boys! We are the fightenest state in the union. A reputation that I am proud of. as we fight for what we believe is right.

15. ANTICRIME Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    I have been constantly after Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist, both my Senators and Congressional Rep. about this most important issue! BUT unless mainstream Florida wakes up and yells along with me, I and those “few” that antagonize them will only be treated like a few mosquitos chasing an elephant! We have a petition for Florida sovereignty going for the past few months and last time I checked there are ONLY about 1300 names signed on! This is a travesty as there should be 50,000 signed on by now, with the large number of people living in Florida! The problem is that the MAJORITY of the population has no idea of the peril they are in or that a petition even exists, thanks to a controlled major media network! Hosea 4:6 “My people perish for the lack of knowledge”!

16. Jim Lunsford Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    Yeah, I just left florida after living there for four years. it is a state deprived of education and just about anything else modern. Even economically it is a state which chooses fiscal suicide as they fight all of their tourist business which brings them their greatest income (ex: spring breaks, bike week, etc.). I guess that’s what happens when you only want the rudest people from New York who are retired to live there. God I hated that state!

17. ANTICRIME Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    TO: Jim Lunsford, I’ve lived in Tampa, FL since 1951 and am very settled with a large home and a lifetime of personal acumulations not to mention the years of hard labor I put into improving my property on the Hillsborough River. At 66 it is hard to gather up my “tons” of stuff and move, but I have been entertaining thoughts of doing so if our “Governor” doesn’t get on the bandwagon with Georgia, Texas and the other states in securing our state from the tyrants now in control of “our” Federal Government! If he does not declare our sovereignty and have the fortitude to nullify any unconstitutional actions of the Feds than, if I haven’t moved, I will have to declare my own personal sovereignty and fight to the bloody end in protecting my Constitutional rights and freedoms. In the end I will most certainly perish BUT I will have died fighting for my country and myself against tyranny! It’s a shame we have to stand alone because of the lack of testosterone of those that govern our state! I have no intention of EVER entering a FEMA camp gate, so help me God!

18. Dale Zylman Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    Citizens who believe as we are labeled subversives at best, terrorists at worst, by OUR OWN GOVERNMENT! I pray for a PEACEFUL revolution.

19. Arklight Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    You know, I’m really surprised that all of the Confederate States haven’t jumped on this like a duck on a bug. The Lower 48 are, essentially, divvied up into a minimum of four distinct cultural entities, five (as nearly as I can figure out) economic entities, the traditional South being a cultural/economic region unto itself; this is not to say that any single entity could make its own way without communication and trade with others, but each has enough inherent force to stand away from the federal government and make its own necessary linkages with the others. Any cohesive confederation of sovereign States would put a finish to federal intervention, which Thomas Jefferson understood completely, being a dyed-in-the-wool ’small r republican’; too bad he was overreached at every step by that ratbastard Hamilton. Better Hamilton had been killed in action fighting his artillery battery than the sordid end he did meet, being shot down like a dog in the street by Aaron Burr. Unless I much mistake, it was Hamilton who planted the cancer in the Consitution with the ‘Obligations of Contract’ clause, and was very actively pushing the Interstate Commerce clause; logic would dictate that commerce between two States is their business, where the central government would be, rightfully, concerned with international commerce. Hamilton, rat that he was, was also a brilliant (criminal) mind, and had some ability to see a century and more down the road to the results of the inevitable abuses of both of those clauses by a militantly Federalist government. I think he was mute on the Tenth Amendment, understanding that a criminal mind would find the unlatched window, unlocked door, unsecured pet access - - - something that could be used to insinuate treason into the daily dealings between the central government and the States. Too bad he wasn’t one of the good guys, huh?

20. Arklight Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 9:49 pm

    Yeah, Dale, the Ninth and Tenth are about the only peaceful revolution weapons we have. You know, it takes a bit to wrap your head around the idea that the American Revolution didn’t end when England gave up the first time, and has been ongoing ever since Lexington Green; Dan Shayes’ Rebellion was an abortive attempt at enforcement of Constitutional guarantees and personal sovereignty by force of arms. Our War Between the States was an attempt by Britain to bring down the United States through dismemberment, and might have worked had some unknown hand not fired a shot in the vicinity of Fort Sumter while the Confederate Inspector General’s survey party was returning to shore, from the fort, in a open boat; logic says that the Confederate batteries would not engage the fort with the Inspector General’s party directly in the line of fire, nor that the fort engaged the Confederate batteries when the entire survey had been completed with no hostility whatever between the Union and Confederate personnel, so who starte it? My guess is a signal gun aboard a foreign observer’s ship and nobody ever copped to it. Had the South succeeded in peaceful seperation, it would most likely have become a pawn of the British. The British had been growing commercial amounts of 16 staple cotton in India for some time, unknown to our southern growers, so the Poms didn’t really need our south for anything commercial, but as a strategic wedge for prying apart the Union and destroying it there was nothing to compare to a Confederacy in the role of a British proxy. Since the North ‘won’ the War Between the States, the British plan was set back because the Americans had won again, but the plan was never abandoned, only refined and our Great Depression, with FDR as president, offered a golden opportunity for him, acting as a (perhaps unwitting) stooge for the Poms, to insitute a mass of unlawful, illegal and unconsitutional agendae that have led us to where we are today; where were the American people while all this was going on? Almost all, all, snug in their beds, oblivious. This has been in the works for over 200 years, and only at this late date are the people of the country beginning to squirm in their sleep, not even yet concious of the mortal peril - - - thank heaven for the Second Amendment, the guarantor of all the rest, when all else fails.

21. Jeff Matthews Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    To see these legislators and e-mail them your opinions, go to http://www.sovereignstates.net/consortium%20members.htm

22. Garrett W. Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 12:37 am

    Here’s what I want to know: if this is just a resolution, when are our state gov’t people going to start taking action on it by nullifying offensive federal laws?

23. Valkyrie132 Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 1:58 am

    I contacted my Florida state ‘reps’ in regard to the 10th, and was told (essentially) that, if such a proposition was ever proposed, it would be carefully reviewed (along with the views of all their constituents), blah, blah, blah. When I insisted that, perhaps, they themselves propose a return to the 10th, no reply was forthcoming.
    I, however, shall continue to insist.

24. Michael Schott Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 2:49 am

    Michael Boldin,

    I would like to see the list updated on the site as you have told Lonnie it is.
    It would be nice to be able to track the progress as it is happening.
    Thanks for all the effort everyone is putting into this endeavor. We are trying to help in our own little corner of PA by printing out the petition our representatives have provided on the web and passing them out to everyone we know. If all did this it would be exponentially effective!
    Michael

25. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 4:32 am

    IF A STATE SECEDED AND RETURNED TO THE FULL WEIGHT OF THE CONSTITUTION WOULD IT THEN COIN AND REGULATE ITS OWN GOLD AND SILVER INSTEAD OF THE FRAUDULENT “MONEY” THAT HAS BEEN COERCED ON US TO EXPROPRIATE THE WEALTH OF WE THE PEOPLE? AGAIN, WOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST SUCH A REBELLION OR ARE THE 9TH /10TH AMENDMENTS SO ABSOLUTE THAT THEY WOULD BE UNABLE TO FIND A LOOPHOLE IN ORDER TO TRY TO DEFEAT THE SECESSIONISTS? I WOULD LIKE SOME INPUT HERE EVEN THO I’M PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.

26. Ken Calman Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 6:15 am

    BEAUTIFUL! This is wonderful news. Given the position of the mainstream media in federal politics it seems our salvation will be through our State governments. It’s great to see a least a few of our elected representatives still have some sand!

27. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 6:22 am

    I EMAILED ALL THE PEOPLE PICTURED AND THANKED THEM.

28. Arklight Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 6:29 am

    Hi, Nancy. The Constitution clearly states that only Congress shall have the power to coin money, among other monetary stuff like declaring the value (in USD) of foreign money, but I don’t think that States are prohibited from striking gold, silver and copper ‘tokens’ with the weight and finess included in the inscription, such as ‘1/10 ounce, .925 fine silver’ or ‘1/4 ounce .900 fine gold’, so long as the US statutory definition of the dollar is incorporated into the State statute. The coin doesn’t say it’s a dime, or a half eagle, but it is.

29. Tiffany Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 6:47 am

    There was a segment on Glenn Beck w judge Napolitano May 7th discussing this and Montana’s 2nd amendment law, so hopefully there will be more noise on this issue to convince those wanting to remain in office to action that otherwise lacked the courage to previously.

30. Arklight Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 7:18 am

    Nancy; there is absolutely NO constitutional bar to secession, which made Lincoln’s spot a tough one to be in. He knew that any state, or combination of states, had the right to dissolve its/their political connection to the federal government. The alleged Confederate firing upon Fort Sumter was, so far as I can tell, a ‘false flag’ deal where somebody fired from somewhere. The Confederate Inspector General was returning to shore from surveying the fort to determine fair market value of the facility, its weapons, military equipment and all the items and material that would remain when the garrison left - - - Fort Sumter was the last, or nearly the last, federal facility to be surveyed so that the Confederacy could pay the Union fair market value for federal property. Somebody fired from somewhere while the IG’s party was still on the water returning to shore, so it’s not logical that the Confederate batteries would have initiated the engagement with their own people in the line of fire; the survey had been conducted and concluded amicably, so the Fort would not have been the aggressor and the commander would not have initiated the engagement without being ordered to do so. There were, however, a number of combat vessels in the vicinity plus foreign observers, so the initial shot could have come from any one of them. My suspicion is that it was a signal gun from one of them, mistaken by the Confederates to have been a shotted instead of blank round, but we’ll never know for sure, now, because nobody ever copped to it. Anyway, a State or combinaton of States are not constitutionally barred from secessoon.

31. Larry Hughes Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Until the States take back their right to appoint u.s. senators, nothing will re-instate the Constitution. The creators of the Constitution; that is the States, has no voice (agent) acting on any legislation or resolutions coming from Washington D.C. Until they do, States rights are only a dream. Repealing the 17th amendment through a convention among the States is our only hope for our children and posterity. See Article V of the Constitution.

32. Arklight Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 9:05 am

    Larry; the 17th Amendment, like the 16th, was never certified by the Chief Librarian of Congress. William Jennings Bryan ‘certified’ the 17th Amendment, but left the ratification paperwork, from the State legislatures, in such a horrible muddle that nobody wanted to tackle the job of sorting it out to determine whether or not the Amendment had been lawfully ratified. Red Beckman (The Law that Never Was) did an astounding job in proving absolutely that the 16th was never lawfully ratified, and the 17th was the flip side of the same coin - - - a monstrous canard. I doubt that any federal judge would have a package big enough to grant a writ of mandamus which would force a determination under law that either, or both, the 16th and 17th Amendments were, or were not, lawfully ratified.
    A Constitutional Convention would be the fatal stroke; the UN has been praying to Ba’al, Moluch, or whatever god it worships, that a con-con can be brought about in order to vacate our Constitution entirely and replace it with a UN document, much of a muchness with the EU ‘Constitution’. There are still black ops ongoing trying to make people believe that there is an active call for a con-con by 34 States, Nevada being one of them. Nevada expunged it’s request with the lawful black bordered notice to all required parties in DC, but the lyin’ sacks who are so GD hot for the con-con insist that Nevada’s call is still valid; several other States rescinded their calls, but the lyin’ bastards insist that their calls are still valid. For several years I’ve assumed that anyone who clamours for a con-con either has an IQ less than their hat size, or is a flat out traitor.

33. G Man Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 9:38 am

    Nancy Russell and Arklight,

    If a state seceded, it would have the right to coin its own money. The Constitution says only the US Congress does, but that is an agreement among the states to delegate that power to the US Congress. If one state withdraws from the Union, the power to coin money would default back to the state (which would likely have to amend its own constitution to reflect that it no longer delegates any of its sovereign powers to a federal government anymore).

    This is, of course, based on the premise that the state is sovereign and the US government has only a few specific delegated powers and limited authority. Since that is not how the federal government operates *in reality*, yes, you can expect DC to challenge the legitimacy of any state secession both verbally and militarily. The federal government operates under the policy of “might makes right”, and not within the rule of law as established by the Constitution. And that is what this whole state sovereignty movement is all about.

34. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    With “tea parties” and the emergence of countless websites like “The 912 Project” and this site; The Tenth Amendment Center and countless others … you can’t help but sense the discontent that is brewing - But all seems to center on being able to just somehow magically change it all through the ballot box - the notion that we can change this - just by voting for “good people”
    However, when you look back over the candidates that each election year run for office and ARE ELECTED - How has that strategy worked so far????? For every example of a “good politician” there are countless other examples of what we have in Congress today that far over shadow them.
    I think what is happening today is that we are witness to the collapse of the United States - of our society… of this “empire” - this nation/state - but this is not unique, it has happened before - to Egypt - to Greece - to Rome - and the list goes on and on and indeed it is a long and notable one. It is part of the cycle of existence - however, the outcome of the collapse is and can be varied - especially when it is based on the awareness of the people involved … not the governments.
    All this - even to the extent of life itself is one of illusion and perception (and I don’t mean that in a negative way) - in our particular situation, it is the illusion or perception that Central or Federal government is indispensable - to demonstrate that, it attempts to provide more and more for its people - then to prolong its usefulness, it begins to MANDATE its usefulness - if not held in check, as is our case - it then begins to develop an air of infallibility.
    This history goes a long way back - it DID NOT start with the Presidency of Mr. Obama - nor is the fault of former President Bush … nor even with the beginnings of the progressive movement under BOTH Wilson and T. Roosevelt. Actually this battle between proponents of State sovereignty dates back to the founding of this country … and it was finally won by those who proposed a ALL KNOWING AND ALL POWERFUL Central Government with the American Civil War. In a sense ALL government - no matter what its size - is nothing more than a “house of cards” - I believe that how fragile that house is, really depends on its size … What we are witnessing now is the collapse of that house.
    I truly think that the options for change are becoming more and more depleted - to the point where an all out revolt is not inconceivable. In my opinion such an action would be an absolutely WRONG path to follow - Personally, I am left with the opinion that only through secession or nullification can there be both an ORDERLY and Lawful change and restructuring of our form of government.
    Of these two courses of last resort - I truly hope it is the latter and NOT the former that is followed. Which will be the ultimate path, I haven’t a clue - of course a third would be to continue to bury our collective heads in the sand … but then I am reminded of a quote made in 1944 by F.A. Hayek (I posted it elsewhere on the “Vent” forum)
    “Probably it is true that the very magnitude of the outrages committed by the totalitarian governments, instead of increasing the fear that such a system might one day arise in more enlightened countries, has rather strengthened the assurance that it cannot happen here…. But let us not forget that fifteen years ago the possibility of such a thing happening in Germany would have appeared just as fantastic, not only to nine-tenths of the Germans themselves, but also to the most hostile foreign observers (however wise they may now pretend to have been).”

    Dale

35. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    THANKS FOR ALL THE ERUDITE INPUT RE: THE CONSTITUTION AND STATES’ RIGHTS. ARKLIGHT IS RIGHT ABOUT THE CON-CON. 34 STATES ARE REQUIRED FOR HAVING A CON-CON AND AT THIS POINT 32 HAVE OKAYED ONE. THE 12 THAT HAVE WITHDRAWN THEIR REQUESTS ARE AT THIS POINT NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO. A CON-CON WOULD BE THE MOST DISASTROUS EVENT WE COULD ENVISION AS ITS AGENDA WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO DISCUSSION OR AMENDMENT BUT WOULD BE IMPOSED WITH NO RECOURSE. IT WOULD NEGATE THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION. HORRORS OF HORRORS.

36. Casey Truskunas Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Mr. Dale Caruso. All is NOT lost and “change” will come. This “change” may come in any one of the forms you describe so well. Waco, Texas is a good example of “resistance” to a government gone amuck. Maybe this time the local law enforcement and the military won’t just stand by. Cheer up.

37. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    THANKS DALE CARUSO FOR THE WELL WRITTEN AND INFORMATIVE PIECE. I SENT IT TO MY SON WHO STUDIES ALOT. WE OWE IT TO THE CAUSE TO BECOME WELL INFORMED PEOPLE. THIS IS BY NO MEANS AN ONEROUS JOB - FOR ONCE WHEN YOU READ ABOUT OUR BRAVE PATRIOTS AND WHAT THEY SACRIFICED FOR US WE KNOW OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND EVERY GENERATION’S RESPONSIBILITY IS THE JOB OF KEEPING US FREE. OUR HISTORY IS MAGNIFICENT AND FASCINATING. DIVE IN.

38. Arklight Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 5:19 pm

    GMan; Yup, a seceded State would have full rights of sovereignty, yer right. Vermont appears to be prepared to go it alone (bless ‘em), but I’m thinking that a group of severed States could be in the same pickle that the original 13 found themselves after the revolution; every State had produced it’s own scrip, as had Congress, there not being enough hard money to begin to meet the needs of the populace; the lawful money vs. legal tender situation is a tough one to get around. If a State coined its own money, where would the metal come from to produce enough lawful money to meet demand (including one-for-one exchange for legal tender notes)? I’d suspect that gold has left the country, in large part, and the gold and silver producing States in the west will probably remain under federal occupation. Nevada’s Assembly has no intention whatever of making even whiny ‘Please don’t hurt me, Mr. Bill’ noises like it did over real ID (which we have anyway, but the Assembly is on record as having objected), so (f’rinstance) Vermont’s acquisition of gold, silver and copper for the purposes of producing its own lawful money could become virtually impossible. Georgia used to be a gold producing State, but it’s a long way from Vermont, and only the least of the challenges to be met in getting metal to the mints. The lawful money issue is a gnarly one.

    The other States which have rescinded their calls of a con-con would have to take the steps to expunge their calls instead. At the time Nevada did, Nevada was still a loyal State and the State’s Attorney understood that the federal government could not be trusted in any respect, and that to merely rescind the call would be ineffective. Apparently, none of the 12 have cared enough to try their issue in federal court; rescision on contract has established favourable finding up the wazoo, but the traitors care nothing about that and will force each State to re-inforce it’s action through the courts.

39. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 5:16 am

    HASN’T NEW HAMPSHIRE RECENTLY PRODUCED ITS OWN CURRENCY FOR USE WITHIN TOWNS IN THE STATE? WHAT DID THE CONFEDERACY PROPOSE TO DO ABOUT MONEY WHEN THEY SECEDED? THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A PLAN IN PLACE BEFORE THEY BEGAN THIS DARING ENTERPRISE. BOB SCHULZ, DIRECTOR OF WE THE PEOPLE’S CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2009, IS MEETING WITH OTHER STATE LEADERS AT THE SAME PLACE IN JEKYL ISLAND, GEORGIA WHERE THE CONSPIRATORS MET TO PLAN THE FEDERAL RESERVE EXPROPRIATION OF OUR WEALTH . THEY ARE THERE TO PLAN A STRATEGY TO RECLAIM OUR RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION. THEY NEED OUR SUPPORT PRAYERFULLY AND FINANCIALLY. CHECK OUT THESE HARD WORKING PATRIOTS.

40. Arklight Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 6:40 am

    Hi, Nancy. Local scrip is nothing new, and has been around in various forms since paper money came about, and probably ever since caligraphy was invented - - - ‘Pay to the bearer 3 muskrat skins. Redeemable at Fur, Fin and Feather Haberdashary, on the banks of Gitcheegoomee. (signed) Nokomis.’
    Nevada’s constitution prohibits use of private scrip, or paper money of any bank other than one approved by the US government. The so-called Federal Reserve Note is private scrip, of course, but nobody seems to realize that; they still think that somewhere on it, it says ‘United States Currency’ or ‘United States Note’ but it doesn’t, and is worthless. It has no value other than that at which the public accepts it.
    The Confederacy printed it’s own paper money, redeemable for gold or silver (if memory serves)6 month following the formal seperation of the Confederate States from the United States. They also issued war bonds, and had actually struck 1 c. and 50 c. coins at the former U.S. mint in New Orleans. I don’t know if they were planning to strike gold coins at Dahlonaga (sic?) or not, nor do I recall if the Georgia mines were still producing gold at that time, but they had a very firm grip on their own money, and production of it.
    Despite various laws banning scrip, you see it all the time; ‘Fifty cents off - - - ‘, ‘Buy one, get one free - - - (twofers)’, KFC, Micky D, Albertson’s, all issue scrip which is redeemed, every day, but is not recognized as scrip. I’d love to see a sample of New Hampshire village scrip, and am curious as to whether they are producing their own trade tokens, are planning to do so. Interesting.

41. Arklight Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 6:49 am

    Nancy; Jekyll Island? Has anything good every come off that place? Interesting. Not Concord or some spot intimately connected with the beginnings of our own great experiment? Hmmmm. Ya know, I think I’ll give it a miss - - - not because a ‘People’s (Continental) Congress’ is, on the face of it, a bad idea, but the location gives the whole thing a distinct aroma; that’s my feeling. Sorry.

42. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 9:06 am

    I think that this is absolutely a MUST read .. it was written by Daniel Miller - a very, very strong advocate of States’ rights and the right of states to secede - he lays out the most simple of analogies making this piece an invaluable aid in trying to explain the notion to those who don’t understand - simply put - Divorce and secession are the exact same thing.

    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=52477990879...

    Dale

43. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 9:09 am

    For some reason the link doesn’t seem to work … so if I may this is what he wrote”

    “I was asked to address the issue of Texas secession. This topic is permeating every aspect of living in North America right now, and some of you felt that I could speak to this topic reasonably without being political. I will attempt to do so.

    There are so many directions that I could tackle this topic to cover all of the bases. The issue of secession and independence is hot right now and there is a tremendous amount of discussion about. Some of which I am proud to be involved. I am under no illusions that this issue can be addressed in a single missive. I am also not under any illusion that everyone will agree with what I have to say. What I can do is present facts, both historical and present, and make logical, well-reasoned conclusions based on those facts through the context of my personal values.

    Although I could talk about governmental theory and the social contract, I want to start by giving you an analogy. Imagine for a moment that you are married. Not a stretch for some of you since you are married or have been in the past. Now imagine that your spouse had done the following:

    - Taken your paycheck and spent it on drugs to the point of running you into serious debt
    - Rendered you and your children financially strapped to the point of financial ruin
    - Taken your money and given it to your neighbor so that “we can be friends”
    - Actively worked to turn your kids into “abusive” clones and against you
    - Ran up gambling debts that you and your children had to pay
    - Repeatedly cheated on you but promised that the next time would be different
    - Made decisions for you that were detrimental without your agreement
    - Put a second, third or fourth mortgage on your home without your consent
    - Promised that they were placing money into your retirement but they were really spending it on frivolous items which would render you destitute at retirement
    - Refused to put locks on the door even when your house has been broken into, your property stolen and you have been raped repeatedly
    - Failed to come to your aid when you were injured or sick
    - Became domineering and controlling to the point of obsession
    - Refused to let you speak your mind about these problems and when you did labeled you as “unstable” and “fringe”
    - Threatened to beat or kill you if you ever leave

    What would you want to do in this situation? If you said anything short of “divorce” please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).

    But did you catch that? D-I-V-O-R-C-E! Divorce and secession are the exact same thing. Let me prove it. Here is an excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence:

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. “

    Thomas Jefferson, as well as the other Founders, were well aware of the role of government in relation to the people. This principle was embodied in the Texas Constitution Article 1 Section 2 which states:

    “All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. “

    The Founders acknowledged our ability to enter into a social contract and they acknowledged our inherent right and duty to exit the contract at the point that it became destructive.

    Back to our analogy…

    No one would ever go to someone suffering under the conditions that I listed above and ask or state any of the following:

    “Aren’t you afraid that you’ll get beaten or killed if you leave?”
    “Marriage is permanent. No matter what.”
    “You need your spouse’s permission to leave.”
    “Well, the grass always seems greener on the other side but really it’s not.”
    “If you leave you will have to start from scratch so maybe you should stay.”
    “So what if you’re having these issues. You’re stronger as a couple.”
    “If you leave you’ll just wind up with someone equally abusive.”
    “Your spouse beat you before. They’ll do it again if you try to leave.”

    Why would you ask or say this to someone living under those conditions? Because it’s morally reprehensible to do so and only someone who is evil would suggest something so morally repugnant.

    Perhaps you fail to see how this analogy fits. Let me make the connections for you.

    The 13 Colonies were individually part of Great Britain from which they declared independence (seceded). Here is the relevant excerpt from the US Declaration of Independence:

    “That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. “

    These 13 Colonies became 13 distinct and independent States equal to the “State of Great Britain” each with it’s own national character. These 13 distinct and independent States entered into a compact of collective defense, foreign policy and commerce called the United States of America. This agreement is similar to and on which the United Nations was originally supposed to be based. Independent, sovereign nation-states who would work together for a common goal. To this end, they drafted a Constitution which was meant to govern the relationship between them. It was the embodiment of John Locke’s concept of the “social contract”. It established a governing body whose sole function was to carry out the 17 legitimate functions granted to it by the states and the people with all other rights and functions reserved for the states and people.

    The Founders had no need to address political divorce (secession) in the document because the right to do so existed before the Constitution and was the sole mechanism that gave them the ability to even draft the Constitution. I’m fairly certain the secession wasn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution of Great Britain at that time either.

    This was the understanding when all States entered into the United States of America. That includes Texas. It was part of the contract.

    Without going into the longest history lesson you would ever have to sit through, suffice it to say that it is not unknown that the Federal Government has overstepped it’s boundaries at the drop of a hat and continues to do so today. Don’t believe me? Here’s a VERY general overview, though I am willing to provide details on specific points if asked:

    - Unfunded Mandates
    - Excessive taxation without adequate representation
    - Frivolous spending of our tax money while our problems can’t be adequately addressed due to a lack of funds
    - Faltering economic system
    - Placed our monetary system into the hands of a private bank who devalued our currency and manipulated our economy at will
    - Pilfering and failure of the worst Ponzi scheme in history (Social Security)
    - Erosion of the separation of powers
    - Repeated and willful violations of the 1st Amendment
    - Repeated and willful violations of the 2nd Amendment
    - Repeated and willful violations of the 4th Amendment
    - Repeated and willful violations of the 5th Amendment
    - Repeated and willful violations of the 9th Amendment
    - Repeated and willful violations of the 10th Amendment
    - Forcing our system of education to become a tool of social engineering
    - Leaving our border less secure than at any time since our independence from Mexico
    - Sending our sons and daughters to war without a declaration of war from Congress as is required
    - Taking our tax money and failing to provide the services promised
    - Unlawfully restricted trade in areas where trade needs to be expanded and shoved free trade down our throats at the cost of jobs and to the detriment of our economy
    - Failed to respond to all petitions for a redress or these grievances
    - Sought to redefine the Constitution to suit it’s own ends
    - Failed to render sufficient aid in disregard to the Preamble’s call to promote the general welfare
    - Instituted an impossibly massive bureaucratic system with more laws and officers than allowed by the Constitution and good sense to do nothing more than control us and “eat out our substance”
    - Overtly attempted to subvert legitimate protest and dissent
    - Taken our money and given it to foreign countries with the effect of inciting hatred against us
    - Expanded their imagined jurisdiction over us through creative interpretations of the “interstate commerce” clause in the Constitution

    Trust me. I could go on but it would be overkill. But imagine for a moment that the United Nations had done these things to the United States. The politicians would be screaming from the rooftops to withdraw from the UN. We would suddenly have 300 million fans of secession.

    But fear not. This is not a scary thing. It’s not an easy decision to make. Divorce never is. But this is not scary. This is where the impetus is placed upon the United States. They have had plenty of opportunities to make the marriage work. We have been subject to an endless parade of politicians who have promised to “turn things around”. Things haven’t turned around. They’ve only gotten worse.

    Now Texas and 30 other states are sending notice to the Federal Government. They are standing up and saying:

    We know what your responsibilities are.
    We know what are rights are.
    We are telling you to line it out or else.

    I don’t believe they will listen. Why? Because self-determination is a global trend. John Naisbitt wrote in his 1994 book Global Paradox: “The world’s trends point overwhelmingly to economic interdependence and political independence.” The advent of the technological revolution has given the people of the world a new drive to find themselves and to assert their right of self-determination. There has been a spike in the number of recognized countries around the globe in the past 30 years. Don’t believe me? Go look at an encyclopedia from 1980 and then look at the list today.

    As homogeneous as some like to think of the United States, it is far from it. We are tied by blood and some common history but economically, culturally and politically we are different. The novelist John Steinbeck said, “Texas is a nation in every sense of the word.” Nations are a distinct people. States are where they call home. And Texas is the home for Texans – a nation-state for a nation.

    Not only should we be independent, but we can. Easily. Here’s some stats for you:

    Texas Gross Domestic Product - $1.245 Trillion (ahead of 209 other countries)
    Texas Population – 23.9 million (ahead of 143 other countries)
    Texas Labor Force – 11.3 million (ahead of 178 other countries)
    Total Taxes Paid By Texans To Both Federal & State Agencies (Representing a Total Potential Budget For An Independent Texas) - $303.4 billion/year
    Projected Military Expenditure of an independent Texas (Global 4% average of GDP) – approximately $50 billion/year (ahead of 216 other countries)
    Texas Exports - $150.8 billion (ahead of 193 other countries)

    And this is the tip of the iceberg. We have deep water ports, the energy and natural resources, the agriculture, the science and technology, the infrastructure and the manufacturing capacity. Imagine how much more efficiently we could use these without the Federal barnacle attached to our hull. Most of all, we have the desire for freedom, the will to succeed and the pride to tie them together. We absolutely have the ability to fulfill the words of Sam Houston when he stated that “Texas will again lift it’s head and stand among the nations.”

    A clash with the United States Federal Government is not inevitable. It is solely determined by the willingness of the rest of the States to use force to keep us in this marriage or to follow a route that we and other States who wish to follow this course of action have avowed which is the path of peaceful separation.

    It is important to reflect on the words of Thomas Jefferson. Speaking on the carving out of new States from the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, Jefferson states that should the inhabitants of the new territory wish to secede from the Union at some point in the future, he was perfectly fine with that:

    “…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

    And again in 1804:

    “Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

    When the New England Federalists considered secession, he stated:

    “”If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’”

    Even Abraham Lincoln, while in Congress in 1848 stated:

    “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement.”

    In the final analysis, secession and freedom are more American than apple pie. It is, as Texans, our heritage twice over.

    I have overstepped my bounds in posting this with many of you. But I don’t do this lightly. This is an issue, not for the 19th century, but for the 21st century and beyond. I have six children whose future rests in my hands. I do not want them to look at me in my old age, when the opportunity of freedom and independence may have passed, when their freedom has all but evaporated and been replaced by a complete and total despotism, when their economy is wrecked and they worry about feeding their children because of debts that mounted before I was born and continued unabated in my lifetime, and ask me “Why, Daddy?” I cannot fathom the shame and regret that I would feel in that instance.

    I think also of the past as well as the future.

    When Colonel Juan Seguin was sent to San Antonio de Bexar by General Sam Houston to give the Alamo defenders a proper burial he gave the following speech:

    Compañeros de armas: Estos restos que hemos tenido el honor de conducir en nuestros hombros son los de los valientes héroes que murieron en el Alamo. Sí mis amigos, ellos prefirieron morir mil veces a servir el yugo del tirano. Que ejemplo tan briIlante, digno de anotarse en las páginas de la historia. El genio de la libertad parece estar viendo en su elevado trono de donde con semblante halagueño nos señala diciendo: “Ahí tenéis a vuestros hermanos, Travis, Bowie, Crockett y otros varios a quienes su valor coloca en el número de mis héroes.—Yo os pido a que poniendo por testigo a los venerables restos de nuestros dignos compañeros digamos al mundo entero. Texas será libre, independiente o pereceremos con gloria en los combates.

    Translation: Comrades in arms: These remains which we have had the honor of carrying on our shoulders are the ones of the brave heroes who died in the Alamo. Yes, my friends, they preferred a thousand deaths rather than surrender or serve the yoke of the tyrant. What a brilliant example. Worthy indeed of being recorded in the pages of history. The genius of liberty seems to be witnessing from its high throne, from whence with praising look points out the deed saying: “Here you have your brothers, Travis, Bowie, Crockett and a few others whose valor, places them in the number of my heroes.—The worthy remains of our venerable companions bearing witness, I ask you to tell the world, Texas shall be free and independent or we shall perish with glory in battle.”

    There is no battle now. I pray to the Almighty that there never is and I work now to make sure that there is not.

    So I leave you with the opening words of the Texas Declaration of Independence. It’s been posted before but it bears reading now as the meaning and intent behind the words are more poignant and relevant than perhaps they were when they were penned.

    “When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted; and so far from being a guarantee for their inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their suppression. When the federal republican constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the ever ready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants. When, long after the spirit of the constitution has departed, moderation is at length so far lost by those in power, that even the semblance of freedom is removed, and the forms themselves of the constitution discontinued, and so far from their petitions and remonstrances being regarded, the agents who bear them are thrown into dungeons, and mercenary armies sent forth to enforce a new government upon them at the point of the bayonet.

    When, in consequence of such acts of malfeasance and abduction on the part of the government, anarchy prevails, and civil society is dissolved into its original elements, in such a crisis, the first law of nature, the right of self-preservation, the inherent and inalienable right of the people to appeal to first principles, and take their political affairs into their own hands in extreme cases, enjoins it as a right towards themselves, and a sacred obligation to their posterity, to abolish such government, and create another in its stead, calculated to rescue them from impending dangers, and to secure their welfare and happiness.” “

44. Arklight Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 10:13 am

    Dave Caruso; very well written piece, Dave. The only exception I have to it is that I would view secession as anulment, rather than divorce. Those of us who have been through divorce with a snarky ex understand that: she gets the house, you get the mortgage; she gets the kids and a very large portion of your paycheck, you get to see ‘em sometimes, if she’s feeling particularly benevolent; she gets the car, you get the payments; she gets the gold mine, you get the shaft - - - so, I prefer anulment where everybody walks away, quits.

    Nancy; I’ve been giving some thought to individual States and their money.
    The valid point was made by another contributor that ‘yes, once a State has seceded, it has the right to coin its own money’. True, but absent a common determination in statute of ‘what is a dollar?’, the probability that parity would be absent is a real concern. When Canada went dollars and cents in 1858, their dollar was almost straight across a half crown, sterling, or about 6 bits US, which caused a lot of hard feelings down the road when americans who know there was a difference, but only had US currency, would ask ‘How much is that in real money?’ The same situation could easily arise if Vermont’s dollar was equal to the US dollar, while Maine’s dollar was more nearly the equivelant of 80 cents US, New Yorks about 90 cents and so on; a common statutory definition of the dollar (or whatever they decided to call it) would be essential to unemcumbered commerce between the free States, and the free States and the US. A monetary equivelant to the metrics fiasco would be unthinkable, as there was a huge dilemma within THAT fiasco; Russian, Japanese, German and UK metric nuts ‘n’ bolts are all slightly different, and there are various manufacturer’s ideas of what a metric bolt is within the UK, so imagine what 15-20 different versions of the dollar would be like if you were traveling from, say, New Hampshire to Texas and had to exchange your money at every State line because a New Hampshire dollar was a dollar ‘n’ a dime in Texas, and anywhere from par to 60 cents in the States between.

    I gotta say, there is a lot of thought, a lot of logic, a lot of very good and gnarly questions put forth in this forum, but no pessimism; if there’s a way to get something done, Americans will figure it out, however tought the nut, we can crack it - - - we are THE ‘can do’ nation upon the planet, and absent D(emented)H(omegrown)S(ociopaths) wailin’ endlessly about the sky being about to plummet and crush us all, we fear no one; that’s why DHS has labeled our veterans (along with a list as long as your arm) as potential terrorsts, enemies of the State, rude, crude, offensive and badly dressed. Americans are a distillation of every great fighting race that ever trod the planet, and given sufficient provocation will fight anybody, anywhere, anytime; the last thing in the world I want to see is for our situation to come down to that, but DC is very, very well aware that there are 545 people in the country who pass the bills, sign ‘em into law, and interpret those measures’ lawful application. There are 300 million of us. You do the numbers, and you’ll see why DC is terrified. Let’s all work dilegently within the Constitution for the United States, as written, and the lawfully ratified amendments thereto, to be as certain as we reasonbly can that the Republic be restored without any ugliness, or that such of the States as wish to are permitted to go in peace, without let nor hindrance.

45. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    LITTLE DID I KNOW WHEN I NEEDED SOME ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THE NEED WOULD BE SO LAVISHLY SUPPLIED. THE INFORMATION IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN, COPIOUS AND SUBSTANTIVE. I FEEL LIKE I’VE BEEN TO CLASS.
    DALE CARUSO: ONE OF THE BOUNDARIES THE FED GOV’T OVERSTEPPED IS: “EXCESSIVE TAXATION WITHOUT ADEQUATE REPRESENTATION”. WHAT IS THE “REPRESENTATION” THAT HAS BEEN IGNORED BY THE GOV’T? THE CONCEPT AND THE SPECIFICS ARE FUZZY.
    TEXAN STATISTICS ARE MIGHTY IMPRESSIVE. HOW DO TEXANS FEEL ABOUT GOV. PERRY’S ABILITY TO STEER THE SHIP OF STATE IN THESE PRESENT TURBULENT WATERS?

46. Michael Schott Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 4:22 am

    Here is a link for all citizens of PA to advance the 10th Amendment Resolution that has been submitted for a vote in Pennsylvania.

    State Representative Sam Rohrer has provided a web site where you can download a copy of the petition and sign it and send to your local representatives in the PA legislature.

    It is imperative that you do it a.s.a.p. as it will come up for vote soon.

    Make an extra copy and give it to your friend or neighbor and double the numbers!!!

    http://www.samrohrer.com/?sectionid=98&sectiontree=98

47. Michael Schott Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 4:33 am

    I would like to know why an amendment can’t be repealed without the worry of a Congressional Convention redoing the whole Constitution.

    It was done before when the 21st amendment annulled the 19th amendment for prohibition.

    I think we should be concentrating on annulling the 17th amendment which provides for the election of Senators and get back to the way the Constitution was originally written so there is a better balance of power in the Congress.

    Once this was done these other issues might take care of themselves

48. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 5:26 am

    Micheal - the one caveat to that is that it must originate in Congress itself.
    I know that on many, many other websites there is so much talk of term limits.
    We seem to have a very short memory - We need remember that membership in this exclusive club know as The United States Congress is determined by the members of that club.
    Many apparently have forgotten that during the early 1990s initiative and referendum was used to put congressional term limits on the ballot in 23 states. Voters in every one of these states approved the congressional term limits by an average electoral margin of nearly two to one.
    However, the joy in Mudville was short lived - In May of 1995, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.
    Apparently, earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress. Any hopes that Congress would self-impose term limits was certainly folly to be sure.
    TO underscore that point - how many of you remember the Republican Party’s “Contract with America?” - the right’s version of “The change we need” - One of the tenants of this “contract” was that of imposing term limits on members of Congress - or at least is sounded good.
    The Republican leadership did indeed, bring to the floor of the House a constitutional amendment that would limit House members to six two-year terms and members of the U.S. Senate to two six-year terms.
    However, this rate of rotation was so slow (the life-tenured Supreme Court averages in the vicinity of twelve years) that the congressional version of term-limits garnered little support among the populist backers of term limits, including U.S. Term Limits, the largest private organization pushing for Congressional term limits. (U.S. Term Limits wanted House members to be limited to three two-year terms.) With the Republicans holding 230 seats in the House, three versions of the amendment got well under 200 votes, while the 12 year term-limits which overrode all the more stringent state measures managed a bare majority in the House of 227-204, well short of the requisite two-thirds majority (290 votes) required to pass a constitutional amendment. Defeated in Congress and overridden by the Supreme Court, this populist uprising was brought to a halt for the purpose of reforming the federal government.
    I think this is an illustration of the futility of attempting to bring about change - accountability - and responsibility through the customary use of “the ballot box” - “gee we just need more good and decent men and women to run - that will fix things …” Well, I would submit - that when you look at past elections (the the reference goes far beyond this most recent one) I would ask, “so how do you think your method is doing so far?”
    Since the conclusion of the American Civil War (to be honest, not entirely sure of the time frame so I may be wrong) The viability and meat of “State Sovereignty” has been relegated to nothing more than a phrase - wasn’t there a time when a state could “recall” they Federal representatives, much the same was a country can recall an ambassador or specific members of its legation for malfeasance of duty or some other impropriety. Representatives and Senators were the “ambassadors” of their particular state to the Federal Government. Now they view themselves (and with a self-established reality) as members of a very special club - in a very real sense, our ruling elite.
    Let me make one observation - one base on decades and decades of knowing and dealing with these people - I was a journalist for nearly 25 years, I have been retired for 14 years - so for nearly 40 years, I have known these politicians - quite intimately so - of both parties (in a sense this is a very sad comment, as I first met many of them when I began my career and now 14 years into retirement, I still meet them for lunch on occasion IN THE CONGRESSIONAL DINNING ROOM, as they ARE STILL IN OFFICE!) Let me first say, that almost without exception, they are all wonderful PEOPLE - case in point - now Vice President Joe Bidden, he really is a hell of a nice man. But something happens to them when they journey inside the beltway, it is as if they are required to check their brain at some both before entering, only to get it back when they leave office. They have always been out of touch to the reality of the outside world, I also sensed this self assumed importance among the members. (I remember once being told by Tip O’Neil that you know you have passed the tip to leave office, when you believe that the country CAN’T run without you) Over the past decade or more, however, I have sensed a growing elitism among the members of Congress. More recently (and I don’t mean as a result of this most recent election cycle) I am sense and even more overtly SEEING ARROGANCE on the part of both the membership of congress AND their staffers as well. This to me has become frightening.

    Dale

49. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 5:57 am

    Nancy,
    With regard to just who does a representative represent … be the a member of congress or senator - you need to look more closely as just where does that individual receive their support. This applies to BOTH parties - as well as to conservative and liberal alike. The delegate is supposed to represent all of his constituents. However, this is rarely the case. Instead, the delegate usually represents the interests of the party who elected him or her. Unless the delegate commits an act that would ban him from the House or Senate, he or she can vote on any issues by personal decision. Understand that these “personal decisions” are more influenced by “following the party line” …. Lobbyists … PAC’s … and other special interest influences.
    I can tell you from nearly 40 years of association with members of Congress … very, very few (if I were to be honest, perhaps a number I could count on one hand) TRULY “represent” totally the will and need of their constituency. Does this make the “corrupt” or “evil” - not by any stretch of the imagination - but since most members have been in office in Washington longer that most ANY CEO of a successful major cooperation, there is an enormous disconnect between themselves and “the folks back home.”
    This is why, perhaps when the last stimulus package was passed … it was so riddled with “pork” … this is perhaps all they know. In a very real sense - it is like the nobility trowing scrapes to the peasants … a “well since I am being so benevolent, this is what they might like.” Very, very reminiscent of the Feudal period of the Middle Ages. More often than not, this gift from the nobility leave even the folks in their home district wondering “What in the world is this?” It is all a manifestation of the disconnect that exists between elected officials and those they “represent”

50. Arklight Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 8:24 am

    Dale Caruso: I’ve not read the brief for the case you cited, but my suspision is that it is much of a muchness with those presented by ACLU and NRA, in that they are presented in such a way as to ALMOST win, by design; when the dust settles and the precident is set, they can echo Maxwell Smart, ‘Missed it by THAT MUCH.’ I was once told that ‘the law is a word game’, and whoever uses the most compelling phraseology wins. So far as I can see, Congress was never granted any power to provide itself with sinecures in perpetuity, and I think the Tenth is the wedge. If a State, by referendum, were to dictate that: Pursuant to limitations placed upon the federal government by the Tenth Amendment, we the people of Pennslytucky reserve the right to limit the terms in office of anyone elected to office in, or from, the State of Pennsyltucky, and further reserve the right to recall any individual elected to office in, or from, the State of Pennsyltucky, excepting only the president of the United States, in that the President is elected to office by the people of all the States and may not be removed from office at the will of the people of any single State.

    Whaddy think?

51. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

    CONGRESS IS EQUIPPED TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT WHO AFTER BEING SERVED QUO WARRANTO CAN BE TRIED IN THE D.C. COURT BY A JURY.

52. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Arklight,
    The case is found in United States Supreme Court cases, volume 514

    Here is a first glance - from Wikipedia - which while helpful, not the end of of information but I do find it often a useful starting point.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

    Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate.

    Soon after the amendment’s adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution:
    “ No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 2), ”

    and:
    “ No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen (Article I, section 3). ”

    Also critical to the issue is the 17th Amendment, which transferred power to select US Senators from the state legislature, to the people of the state:
    “ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. ”

    Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.

    ***** My comment *******
    I find it interesting, the rational that she uses in her suit that limiting the number of consecutive terms — “unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications” ????????????????
    Also curious to me is that “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” was interpreted to mean a “transfer” of power - further, implying an abdication of power. If these three qualifications are taken then as the authority for their absolute and unconstrained power.
    I really want to share this part - this is what was written by the Majority in the Supreme Court decision. In effect, they affirmed that this is a Centrist Government … and the Federal or Centrist Government is supreme;

    “The Supreme Court affirmed by a 5-4 vote. The majority and minority articulated different views of the character of the federal structure established in the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that:
    ‘Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. … Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.”

    It goes on to say;

    “He further noted that sustaining Amendment 73 would result in “a patchwork of state qualifications” for U.S. Representatives, and described that consequence as inconsistent with “the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure.”

    What, to me is VERY troubling was the concurring opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. He wrote that the amendment would “interfere” with the “relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government.”

    By the way, yes the ACLU was involved in the case … as one might have expected, they participated in the trial as an amicus curiae, urging it to uphold the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision.

    Why do I keep flashing on ancient Rome - and in this particular instance, when GENERAL JULIUS CAESAR was give absolute authority - supposedly by the people and became the first emperor thus ending in a very real sense the republic.
    I can’t strongly suggest enough for people wanting an understanding the patterns of history that are repeating here in the United States, it is so important to begin to look at the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. Do not fixate on the characters - or even the specific events, rather the patterns … characters and events are peculiar to their particular moment in time - it is the PATTERNS that are the constant in history. (perhaps that’s why history does seem to continually repeat itself, we never seem to recognize the patterns.)

    Another thing, in reading the Wikipedia piece on Term limits in the United States

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States

    … I found the Historical background section particularly interesting.
    let me quote some passages from that section;

    “In June 1776, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen to examine forms of government for the impending union of the states. Among the proposals was that from the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, “to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress….” The committee made recommendations, which as regards congressional term-limits were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789]). The fifth Article stated that “no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years.”

    In 1776, rotation experiments also took place at the state level. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at “four years in even.” Benjamin Franklin’s influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin’s earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania’s plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.

    In contrast to the Articles of Confederation, the federal constitution convention at Philadelphia omitted mandatory term-limits from the second national frame of government, i.e. the U.S. Constitution of 1787 to the present. Nonetheless, due largely to grass roots support for the principle of rotation, rapid turnover in Congress prevailed by extra-constitutional means. Also George Washington set the precedent for a two-term tradition that prevailed (with the exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s four terms) until the 22nd Amendment of 1951.

    However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787-88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as “most highly and dangerously oligarchic.” Both Jefferson and George Mason advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation.” The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that “there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done….”"

    Finally - before I bore every reader to death, if I haven’t done so already .. in the section on Federal Term Limits … this line was particularly intriguing and really begs more research and explanation. In referring to the May Supreme Court decision it says this;

    “Earlier that Spring, the U.S. Congress had given the Court assurance that the Justices would be acting only against state statutes, not overturning an act of Congress.”

    In a very broad sense … I mean we are seeing it in most every facet of, not only our economy and government - but across society as a whole … the parallels between what was Rome and what is the United States is a tad frightening.

    Dale

    “

53. Jim Lunsford Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    And we all know how quickly Rome recovered from her fall. May our next revolution, and there will be war again though it is not to be looked lightly upon, correct the inadequacies of the past and lay forth even more safeguards against our own inherent corruptions.

54. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 10th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Jim,
    So very true … can we say “dark ages” … interestingly .. “correct the inadequacies of the past and lay forth even more safeguards against our own inherent corruptions” - the framers of the Constitution did exactly that. They knew the pitfalls and vocalized their concern and desire to avoid them. … and look where we are now … I wonder if it speaks to the notion that theories of Governing are finite in their life expectancy? No matter how grand the construct … it doesn’t last indefinitely.
    Even if attempts are periodically made to “rejuvenate” it … the father the time frame or distance from the original … the more it is bastardized. Might this even be unavoidable? How much - no matter how much might have been written by the framers - can we really know about what they thought. All too often their writings are interpreted by “scholars” .. But I am sorry … no matter the extent of one’s insight … in the end, it is just an interpretation … and opinion. No matter how well intentioned or critical and this needs to be understood with the appropriate “grain of salt.” Also .. understand that the farther one moves not only from the original document .. but the moment in time that it was conceived … the more it is subjected to the “I can make it better” syndrome. More often than nor .. the “better” really means .. “What I think is better … based on my objectives,” no matter how benign they might be. Two examples from my post above, in Justice John Paul Stevens’ remarks;
    “… that consequence as inconsistent with “the uniformity and national character that the framers sought to insure.”
    and in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence,
    “… the amendment would “interfere” with the “relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government.”
    Both are centrists … (and no, one cannot vilify then for that) .. and so this is the personal objective from which they interpret. Even though it could be strongly argued .. based on the document AND most especially the writings of those who framed it … that this likely was NOT their intent.
    It’s the old story of .. is the glass half full or half empty.
    It goes back to a notion I mentioned in an earlier post … truth .. is nothing more than perception - the perception of the “beholder” ..
    In its best form .. there is no “Truth” or more particularly, “Absolute Truth” … as a very wise (well, I think) professor once told me … “Truth is nothing more than the best possible GUESS … based (ideally) on the best possible information at a given moment in time.”
    I can’t help be say that we are in collapse … in every aspect .. NO I am not being an alarmist … or a fatalist .. I am being pragmatic … history is NOT on our side with this. If it is of any consolation … it has happened before, and undoubtedly … will again and again … we just happen to be witnessing a truly fascinating moment in time. But rest assured .. things will go on … and start again.
    To be VERY blunt .. I have terminal cancer .. that I have begun to think has a curiosity about all this - It is in a remission that has totally bewildered doctors, as it presently has lasted three times longer than any statistic suggests. I am willing to swear on a stack of bibles, I have heard it speak to me, saying, “this is just too damn fascinating … WE ARE STICKING AROUND to see how this all comes out! Now, get busy and go make me some more popcorn.”
    really!!! LOL
    That and I have ten grown daughters … several of whom love running and have entered “Cancer Runs” for cancer survivors and plan on doing so each year … thus compelling me to “damn, I have to stick around for the next one.” Daughter … no matter what their age .. are SO demanding of their dads.
    Dale

55. Dale Caruso Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 8:32 am

    If you have already read it — then it is time to dust it off and read it again … if you have never, you are in for an experience.

    Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville,
    de Tocqueville’s book is available on line at

    http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

    Written in 1835, it is a very lengthy work to be sure … but also I believe required reading.
    If you have an economy of time …. might want to read this section first, as it most applies with what is happening today … almost prophetically so.
    The section is “Section 4: Influence of Democratic Ideas and Feelings on Political Society.”

    As George Will wrote in his Sunday column in the Washington Post;

    “In “Democracy in America,” Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by “an immense, tutelary power” determined to take “sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” It would be a power “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle,” aiming for our happiness but wanting “to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness.” It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in “a network of petty regulations — complicated, minute and uniform.” But softly: “It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them” until people resemble “a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”

56. Casey Truskunas Says:
    May 11th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    Hey, trust me, I’m on board, sooo……….what’s the next move and where?
    I live in the sovereign Republic of Texas with Chuck Norris as our next President.

57. Larry Hughes Says:
    May 18th, 2009 at 11:51 am

    To Arklight and Nancy Russell: Any Constitutional Convention could and most assuredly should have the singular purpose of repealing the 17th amendment only. No other proposal should be heard; otherwise the convention would be a free for all. Surely the state legislatures are smart enough to pre-determine that fact.
    Once the 17th is repealed, the Senators , once again representing the states, can cut off any appropriations of money the federal government needs to further impose it’s will on the states and the people.

58. Arklight Says:
    May 18th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

    Larry Hughes:

    If you think that a con-con would be limited to the subject of the 17th Amendment only, then you’re inhaling/injecting/ingesting some hallucinogenic substance. Tighten up yer wig, dude! The dicks that were hot, hot, HOT for the con-con during the Ronnie Raygunz administration openly admitted that there were a lot of changes that would be made, and no one and nothing could get in the way once the opening gavel dropped. Do your research.

59. Michael Boldin Says:
    May 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    Larry - I’m sure if you, personally, were in charge of what the con-con would be limited to, then we could be more confident of it being limited to this one issue.

    But, since you and I don’t personally control what’s to come, there are plenty of very interested, well-funded, people who just might want to see limitations on government removed even more…don’t you think?

60. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 18th, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    WOULD ANYONE KNOW HOW TO GATHER THE FACTS ABOUT THE CON-CON? I THOUGHT WHAT I READ WAS CORRECT. I BELIEVE PHYLLIS SCHLAFLEY WROTE WHAT I READ.

61. ANTICRIME Says:
    May 18th, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    I found a website that I believe everyone here would benefit perusing as it explains in a condensed but thorough format the ungodly grip that has our country by the throat and the delema the individual states face! Please click on: http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

62. Arklight Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 6:33 am

    Nancy Russel: http://www.newswithviews.com is pretty good, but if you go to ask.com, type con-con into the search bar, you’ll get any number of sites, among them the lyin’ bastards who claim that 32 states still have an active call for a Constitutional Convention. If you’ll notice, the term ‘con-con’ is a cute trick to minimize the mortal import of a Constitutional Convention; this was deliberate, and banked heavily upon the deep, dogged, impenetrable and incurable stupidity of the American electorate - - - most don’t care what happens, so long as nobody is kicking THEIR door down and beating/shooting their spouse and kids. Unfortunately, die polizei (the federalized police and sheriff’s departments) are doing that, increasingly, all over the country but it doesn’t make the mainstream news. For other sites of interest, try http://www.hawkscafe.com; http://www.rense.com; http://www.infowars.com; http://www.jpfo.org. I wouldn’t use either Google or Yahoo as the search engine, kiddo.

    Oh, yeah - - - check out the Chicago Tribune piece on the ballot initiative to demand a ‘con-con’.

63. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 7:37 am

    THANKS ARKLIGHT. BY THE WAY, IS YOUR NAME A REFERENCE TO OLD NOAH’S BOAT?
    I AM FAMILIAR WITH MOST OF THE SITES YOU SUGGESTED AND WILL RESEARCH THERE.

64. Arklight Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 7:53 am

    Nancy Russel: you’re welcome, Nancy. No, Arkight has nothing to do with Noah, although he were a righteous dude; if he parked his boat on Ararat, how did he get platypuses, kangaroos, ostriches and Koala bears to Aussie?

65. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 19th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    ALL OLD NOAH DID WAS TO SPEND 150 YEARS BUILDING THE ARK. THE REST WAS A SUPERNATURAL MAGIC SHOW. YOU KNOW IF GOD CREATED ALL THOSE BEASTS AND CREEPING THINGS IN ONE DAY WHY COULD HE NOT FIND A WAY TO CREATE AND DEPOSIT THOSE AUSSIE ANIMALS DOWN UNDER?

66. Arklight Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 3:53 am

    Nancy Russel
    Aussie critters getting from the Ark to Aussie wasn’t a serious question.
    I hope you found the info you were looking for regarding 10 A.

67. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 8:36 am

    TO ANTICRIME - I READ THE BAREFOOTS ARTICLE ON HOW WE GOT HERE. DID YOU WRITE IT? I AM AWESTRUCK WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THE BANKRUPTCY DESIGNATION WAS FORCED UPON THE USA. WHEN MORTGAGE PAYMENTS ARE PAID WHERE DOES THE MONEY ACTUALLY GO? IS IT DIVIDED BETWEEN THOSE FAMILIES AND THE BANK WHICH ORIGINATED THE MORTGAGE? I’M TRYING TO IMAGINE MY EXPLAINING IT TO SOMEONE AND I FIND IT’S NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME TO DO SO. CAN YOU GIVE A CHRONOLOGY OF THE PAPER TRAIL? IF I PAY CASH FOR THE PROPERTY DO I BYPASS ALL THAT PUBLIC POLICY ENSLAVEMENT? THERE’S A MOVEMENT TRYING TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY TAX AND REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER TAX. WILL THAT RUIN THEIR SCHEME OR WILL THEY FIND ANOTHER WAY TO COMPENSATE?

68. Arklight Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 9:18 am

    Nancy Russel:
    If (when) you complete payment for your land, update your land patent, or get the alodial title to it. Alodial titles procurement varies from state to state, i.e. in Nevada you have to prepay the property taxes that would be ‘lost’ to the governing entities, and the title is only valid for the individual(s) acquiring the title; your kids/grandkids would have to go through the entire process again. I’m not sure, but I think a land patent is transferable, can be held by a family trust or corporation (which is not the same as a business corporation) under common law. Once you get ensnared in the equity/admiralty laws you’re sunk. I’m sure that there are groups which specialize in the common law holding of land, and you might try http://www.thepowerhour.com and check their archives, or http://www.rense.com might have something on it. Anything you have that is accompanied by a ‘Certificate of title/live birth, etc. only means that a title/birth certificate exists somewhere, but you don’t got it. Somebody, somewhere, is holding the real title or birth certificate as surety for a debt of some kind. You might try Ask.com and type ‘Alodial title’ or ‘Land Patent into the search bar. Once again, stay away from Google or Yahoo.

69. ANTICRIME Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:30 am

    Nancy, I only wish that I had the knowledge that Bob Hardison had when he wrote that essay! Unfortunatly Bob passed away on Jan 31, 09 but the bright side is that he has, and still is, educating a lot of folks through his website. Google: Barefootsworld.net and you will find an extensive listing of his writings. Like yourself, I’m still learning so I really cannot intelligently answer your questions. Another tid-bit of information that ALL active voters should know about is: http://www.gradegov.com where “we the people” can let our Congressional “employees” know what we think of them!

70. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    MANY THANKS TO ANTICRIME AND ARKLIGHT FOR EXCELLENT RESOURCES. MY DAUGHTER TOLD ME ABOUT GRADE.GOV LAST WEEK AND WE WENT OVER THE FAILING GRADES JUSTIFIABLY RECEIVED BY THE FLOTSAM/JETSAM IN WASHINGTON. I USE GOOGLE TO ACCESS INFORMATION - LET ME KNOW WHY THAT IS A BAD MOVE ALONG WITH YAHOO. I’M AMAZED AT HOW MUCH INFO IS AVAILABLE AND HOW MUCH I HAVE TO LEARN - THANKS AGAIN. ANTICRIME - DID YOU GET THE IDEA FROM READING MR HARDISON’S ARTICLE THAT THE BANKRUPTCY STATUS PLACED ON US AS “CITIZENS” CANNOT BE OVERTURNED AND THAT THE 9/10 AMENDMENTS ARE IMPOTENT NOW?

71. Arklight Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Nancy Russel:
    Google and Yahoo are very, very heavily involved with a number of alphabet soup angencies, and every search and search result is logged, somewhere. Go to http://www.thepowerhour.com and there should be a link to a secure search engine. I just use ask.com, since I’m sure I’ve got a whole page of ‘The Red List’ all to myself anyway, I don’t use Google or Yahoo just for the H-E-double toothpicks of it. Oh, yeah: if you’re wise you’ll go through and manually delete every scrap of Google and Yahoo from your hard drive. If you’ve been using you machine for anything sensitive, download ‘Eraser’ or ‘Scribble’ and learn how to use it.

    The Constitution is positive law, Nancy. It’s the botom line. Congress figured out over 100 years ago that they can pass any kind of law, and once it’s signed by the president, it has full effect until rejected by the courts; the various federal courts, even if they had the will to do so, cannot possibly hear every suit that’s brought to overturn a law, code or regulation. 9A and 10A are alive and well, but Congress skirts them under color of law - - - that’s something that looks, tastes, smells and feels like law but is not. In much the same manner that our economy is not formed around money, but it is around the color of money; you may remember years ago that the dollar sign was an ‘S’ with two vertical strokes through it, then in the sixties it suddenly dropped one of the strokes. That meant that the dollar sign no longer represented lawful money, but signified legal tender, color of money. The Brits have the same thing, where the pound sign has a single horizontal stroke through the ‘L’ where there used to be two. Once again, legal tender replacing lawful money.

72. ANTICRIME Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    Nancy, As you can now see that we are embroiled in a diabolical web of ensnarement that has been woven over MANY years by those hidden behind our puppet government whose intent is nothing less than total world domination and control. This was allowed to happen because man is corruptable under the influence of personal gain. Those in high places became corrupted and through their power and influence brought in those compatible with their agendas. Together schemes were perpetrated behind the backs of the American people who placed their full trust behind those who were elected to represent them and look out for their best interests. Franklin Deleno Roosevelt is a prime example of the epitome of corruption but to this day the MAJORITY of the American people still believe he was a “Great” president! TRUST is the key word that put us into the quagmire we are now in today! Most people are too busy trying to earn a living, getting up early in the morning, going to work all day and coming home dead tired and facing household problems, etc. Politics is the last thing on their minds and boring at that! They believe what they see and hear on the daily TV news and fall asleep in the chair, then start the whole routine over again the next morning. So you can see how easy it was for treacherous people to take advantage of this scenario. From the results I have been getting from Florida’s Governor and my Congressional Representative and Senators it seems that these people have no interest in protecting Florida’s sovereignty. As WE THE PEOPLE are the REAL and true source of power behind both the state and federal governments, these being ONLY a representation of us for unity purposes, WE have the RIGHT to declare our INDIVIDUAL sovereignty from ANY tyranical government if we are abandoned by either state or federal entities! WE THE PEOPLE are the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Police, etc, etc that are being USED by government, supposidly for the benifit of the country as a whole. If and when it comes to the point that government becomes despotic and exposes itself to being a “domestic enemy” of our U.S. Constitution then ALL of us that have taken the oath to defend our country from enemies, foreign and domestic, MUST enforce the Jeffersonion Constitutional rule of law as this is a mandatory DUTY! Failure to do so makes one a TRAITOR to his country! So even though the hidden hand behind the scenes fooled and tricked the American people, through their corrupted minions, and kept them sound asleep over the years, all is far from lost! Our forefathers gave us the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee that it lives into posterity so the DUTY is upon WE THE PEOPLE to ENFORCE the law of the land and bring to justice those who dared to tread on us and OUR U.S. Constitution! If need be I will stand and battle alone and die alone before I lose my freedom and my country to tyranny! I just pray that the MAJORITY of Americans will feel and ACT the same as I will. If not, then they do not deserve their freedom and will gain their just rewards for their cowardly treason! In the words of our brave Marines: “UH-RAH”!

73. Arklight Says:
    May 20th, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    Nancy Russel: For a search engine try ixquick.com

74. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 21st, 2009 at 5:46 am

    YOU TWO ARE AMAZING. GETTING THE CITIZENRY TO RISE UP IS CRUCIAL BUT DEPRESSINGLY DIFFICULT. I READ SO MUCH FROM AUTHORS WHO RHETORICALLY ASK WHERE IS THE RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION? I THINK HOW FEW THERE WERE WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION AT THE TIME AND YET IT SUCCEEDED. WE NEED THOSE PATRICK HENRYS, NATHAN HALES, JEFFERSONS, REVERES ET AL. YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN AMERICANGRANDJURY.COM. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO SCRAP GOOGLE SEARCHES. IF IT’S SIMPLE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN, ARKLIGHT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT YOU WOULD INSTRUCT ME. THANKS AGAIN TO OUTSTANDING KNOWLEDGE AND YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SHARE IT.

75. Arklight Says:
    May 21st, 2009 at 7:02 am

    Nancy Russel;
    To get the Google off your machine, have the 15 year old geek in your neighbourhood to do it for you. That’s what I did. Approximately 3% of Americans were actively involved in AR I (First American Revolution), and of the men who fought the regulars on April 19th, 1775 a very large number were veterans; the British were horrified when they saw Americans magically appear in droves, form and dress ranks, fix bayonets (those who had them) and advance with precision and determination that infantry of those days always displayed when going forward to engage the enemy at close quarters. That same fighting spirit is as much alive, here, today, as it was at Fredricksburg, Gettysburg, Belleu Wood, Chateau Thierry, Bastogne, Korea, and the numerous instances when the remnants of a platoon/company would charge a blazing tree line in Vietnam; is it any wonder that one of the top items on the agendas of Congress and the administration is that of disarming our veterans by sleazy lawyers quibbles? Our own veterans are being labeled as ‘possible domestic terrorists, and enemies of the State’. In the entire country, there are 545 people who pass the bills, sign the laws and make the final determination of whether that law complies with the Constitutional parameters; there are 300 million of us. You do the math, kiddo, and you’ll understand why the politicians are terrified. It’s when the veteran, whose courage and honour are beyond question, gets into politics that they make the fatal turn away from what they’d been, up ’til then. I actually feel sorry for Randy ‘Duke’ Cunningham. At the end, I’m convinced that he understood that he had sold every personal trait of value for a few cars and a couple of houses - - - “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”

76. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 21st, 2009 at 7:59 am

    THANKS ARKLIGHT, I’LL LOOK FOR A LOCAL GEEK. IT’S RELIEVING TO KNOW IT CAN BE DONE. I ACCESSED LXQUICK AND FOUND WHAT I WANTED. FUNNY YOU MENTIONED CHATEAU THIERRY BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE MY DAD FOUGHT IN WW1. YOU AND I MAY BE CLOSE IN AGE. IT’S ALSO REASSURING TO BELIEVE WE CAN BRING OUR COUNTRY BACK FROM THE EDGE. I BELONG TO OATHKEEPERS AND THAT IS A BIG COMFORT. THANKS AS USUAL.

77. Arklight Says:
    May 21st, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Nancy Russel:
    Sure, Nancy, you bet. My dad wasn’t born until 1918, but my great grand uncle fought at Chateau Thierry; he was an infantry sergeant with one lung (tuberculosis toasted one and killed his brother), and got gassed in the lung he had left. All his life he had occaccional ulcerated lesions on his legs from the nitrogen mustard, and a ropy cough in winter. I despise the people who think that chemical/biological weapons are cool; while they’re burning in Hell there should be somebody standing over ‘em with a barge pole to mash ‘em into the embers every time they raise up for a breath of air.

78. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    DAD WAS GASSED A NUMBER OF TIMES AND WHEN HE RETURNED TO THE STATES HE WAS ILL AND DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO FEEL BETTER UNTIL HE WENT TO A HEALTH FOOD RESTAURANT AND WAS CURED EATING SAFE, NUTRITIOUS FOOD. HE WAS A CORPORAL AND TOLD US HE NEVER HAD ANY DOUBT THAT HE WOULD SURVIVE THE WAR AND AS A RACONTEUR HE PIQUED OUR INTEREST WITH HIS MANY AND ENTERTAINING TALES. I MISS HIM.

79. Arklight Says:
    May 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Nancy Russel:
    You might want to go to http://www.hawkscafe.com and check out the archived bulletins. So far as I’ve been able to verify their material, they’ve been spot on. Also, you might want to find a copy of ‘The Antifederalist Papers’, which have, included, the Convention debates, the Consitution, and bushels of other relevant material. For comparing capatalism as it should most nearly resemble in order to be a ‘perpetual engine’, Ayn Rand’s book ‘Capitalism; the unknown ethic’ is an excellent guide, with some rather astonishing contributions by Alan Greenspan before he turned his coat. ‘Capitalism’ is probably the least readable of her works, but well worth the unwavering determination to ‘get through’ it which is required; Ayn Rand’s books warned people for many years of what could happen without the microscope focus on officials, banksters and stock weenies but did anybody listen? Yeah, the people she was warning us against, and they just tweaked their playbook about a half a degree and slid over/under/around the descriptions that would have seen them exposed, at least to those of us who paid attention.
    Oh, yeah - - - watch out for this professor what’s-his-name, the new Big WOOOO contributor, read his article very, very carefully. I’ve my own opinion of this guy, but it may be that my nose has become overly delicate from detecting the odour rats through the years. Let me know what ya think, kiddo.

80. NANCYRUSSELL Says:
    May 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    WHERE CAN I FIND THE BIG WOOOO PROFESSOR’S ARTICLE AND WHO IS THIS PERSON? I WENT TO HAWK’S CAFE AND DIDN’T SEE ANY ARCHIVE THAT MATCHED.

81. Rob Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    May I suggest that states specifically declare that they have not delegated to the federal government the power or authority to require residents to divulge to census information to anyone other than federal employees (thus excluding ACORN and other political advocacy groups), and that such information shall be limited only to that specifically enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. May I suggest that states further make it a state crime for federal agents to claim legal authority to declare any additional information for the purposes of a census without a judicial order based on powers specifically enumerated by the states.

82. Jim Lunsford Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Awesome idea on the census. Personally, I never give them any data whatsoever. Ignore them completely. Of course, though I would be ecstatic over a return to the Constitution, my actual political leanings are of Anarchy. So, I have absolutely no use for any governmental body whatsoever. However, if we are going to have one, at least make them follow the rules they set down for the rest of us.

83. Michael Boldin Says:
    July 1st, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    And, Jim, if it’s going to exist, it needs to be as small in size and scope as possible. That way, if it gets out of hand, it’s easier to “escape”

84. Skip Bilson Says:
    July 11th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    Amen, Brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    States rights is what the Civil War was all about. Regardless of the hype President Lincoln put on the situation.

    A lot of people have had enough of BIG government!!!!!!!!!!!!!

85. Dale Zylman Says:
    September 8th, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    I may need to eat crow. My thanks to Rep. Workman for sponsoring a States Rights Resolution in the Fl house. When U.S. Rep. Bill Posey initiated the Town Hall meeting in Melbourne(much thanks, Bill) Rep. Workman received the loudest ovation after mentioning the “States Rights” resolution. Other sites if you’re not familiar: campaignforliberty.com, tenthamendmentcenter.com, 1911usa.com, and so many others. Don’t forget the ACLJ-American Center for Law and Justice. Do your research. I don’t intend to slight anyone, just too many to list(and remember). Don’t forget “Freedom Watch” Wed. at two on Fox Streaming News with Judge Andrew Napolitano whose frequent guest Peter Schiff is making a run for Chris Dodds CT Senate seat. Together we can take back this country! God Bless you all.

86. Dale Zylman Says:
    September 8th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Sorry, the site is usa1911.com. My apologies.

2 Trackbacks For This Post

1. The Right Side of Life » States Formally Declare: Don’t Tread On Us! Says:
   May 7th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

   [...] is precisely what State legislators like South Dakota State Rep. M. J. “Manny” Steele proposes in his invitation (PDF with signatures) for other State officials to join the cause (as always, major hat-tip to [...]

2. A Joint Invitation to Return to States' Rights | Tenth Amendment … | USCoinBox.Com Says:
   May 10th, 2009 at 4:32 am

   [...] Here is the original:  A Joint Invitation to Return to States' Rights | Tenth Amendment … [...]

Leave a Reply