Are we headed for civil war?
Oct 30, 2013 22:28:04 #
Below is an interesting article from this source:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.
Oct 30, 2013 22:52:39 #
[quote=rumitoid]Below is an interesting article from this source:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.[/quote]
Good post. We in fact were never meant to be a democracy, we were meant to be a republic where the federal government had a very limited power over state constitutions and their individual ability to rule themselves. This all ended with the civil war.
http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.[/quote]
Good post. We in fact were never meant to be a democracy, we were meant to be a republic where the federal government had a very limited power over state constitutions and their individual ability to rule themselves. This all ended with the civil war.
http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
Oct 30, 2013 22:55:00 #
[quote=rumitoid]Below is an interesting article from this source:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.[/quote]
Good post. We in fact were never meant to be a democracy, we were meant to be a republic where the federal government had a very limited power over state constitutions and their individual ability to rule themselves. This all ended with the civil war.
http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.[/quote]
Good post. We in fact were never meant to be a democracy, we were meant to be a republic where the federal government had a very limited power over state constitutions and their individual ability to rule themselves. This all ended with the civil war.
http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
Oct 30, 2013 22:56:53 #
That is weird, I tried several times on the quote reply but it always just adds my words to yours on your post.
Oct 30, 2013 22:57:24 #
Good post. We in fact were never meant to be a democracy, we were meant to be a republic where the federal government had a very limited power over state constitutions and their individual ability to rule themselves. This all ended with the civil war.
http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
That government is best that governs least. - Henry David Thoreau
http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/what-is-the-republic/history/
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
That government is best that governs least. - Henry David Thoreau
Oct 30, 2013 23:09:34 #
comcash1
Loc: the UK
Yes, the economy of the United States IS headed
for a total collaspe of the current federal gov't by
late 2016 due to the unpayable national debt that
Obama has created.At present time Pres Obama
is quietly doing eveything he can to force the
U.S.dollar to collaspe.
The >petrol dollar sytem< that brought america
its growing wealth over the past 75years is now
collasping worldwide which means that the
nationwide general economy has begun to
collapse and the only thing that the average
american citizen can do about it is to witness
the collaspe.Simply look up >petro dollar
system' on google and find out how it really
worked and why the >petro dollar system is
now collasping..and WHY the U.S. treasury and
nationwide economy WILL fully collaspe by end
of 2016.This is not by accident; this has been
planned out the Rockefellas and the global
RothChild cartel and is being guided by
Pres Obama.
Once the U.s.currency has fully collasped..
the entire U.S.economy will collapse. At that
point there will be a 2nd american revotlution
on american soil and a gorilla civil war betwen
knowledgeable & armed american & canadian
citizens and Obama's FEMA agency and the
paid chinese, russian and german mercenaires
who are on U.S.soil to enforce martial law.
Obama has already sold out 320 milion
american citizens...and getting paid
$250Million a year to do it. [
www.infowars and prisonplanet.com].
The 2nd ameircan revolution will probably be as
bloody and deadly as the 1st revolution..but the
2nd revolution will enable the american militia &
armed private citizens to take back their country
and destroy Obama's criminal kabal..and to
re surrect the original constitional gov't. Currently
there is about $18 Trillion dollars in private
offshore accounts owned by private american
citizens and beyond the reach and grab of
Obama's federal gov't. These funds could be
used to "re float" the american gov't and
financial system.
When the U.S.treasury collaspes...all entilement
program checks..; ie, social security, SSI, veterans
monthly benefits checks, etc..will stop being issued..
cos there will not be any >money< available to
priint and send out the checks..and the banks
will probably have closed.
Obama is quietly being paid $250 Million a
year to his offshore bank account by the
David Rockefella Foundation and the
RothChilds to destroy the amerircan republic
and the american economy as quickly as he
can from inside the oval office.This is his
real job. His Obamacare program is simply
part of his agenda.
IF you are content to live in a brutal soviet
police & welfare state and have NO personal
liberty....or any rights...keep sitting on your
couch and watching cable TV all day.You will
soon meet the armed and dangerous FEMA
squad personnel at your front door and then
deal with them as best you can...OR you can
become an active part of the 2nd american
revolution...and save your own country...
Scott Wayne. the MoneyWorkz[tm].
comcash1@gmail.com
l
ewwatch the collaspeingthere is nothing that the average ameiricanrcaner.
:-D
for a total collaspe of the current federal gov't by
late 2016 due to the unpayable national debt that
Obama has created.At present time Pres Obama
is quietly doing eveything he can to force the
U.S.dollar to collaspe.
The >petrol dollar sytem< that brought america
its growing wealth over the past 75years is now
collasping worldwide which means that the
nationwide general economy has begun to
collapse and the only thing that the average
american citizen can do about it is to witness
the collaspe.Simply look up >petro dollar
system' on google and find out how it really
worked and why the >petro dollar system is
now collasping..and WHY the U.S. treasury and
nationwide economy WILL fully collaspe by end
of 2016.This is not by accident; this has been
planned out the Rockefellas and the global
RothChild cartel and is being guided by
Pres Obama.
Once the U.s.currency has fully collasped..
the entire U.S.economy will collapse. At that
point there will be a 2nd american revotlution
on american soil and a gorilla civil war betwen
knowledgeable & armed american & canadian
citizens and Obama's FEMA agency and the
paid chinese, russian and german mercenaires
who are on U.S.soil to enforce martial law.
Obama has already sold out 320 milion
american citizens...and getting paid
$250Million a year to do it. [
www.infowars and prisonplanet.com].
The 2nd ameircan revolution will probably be as
bloody and deadly as the 1st revolution..but the
2nd revolution will enable the american militia &
armed private citizens to take back their country
and destroy Obama's criminal kabal..and to
re surrect the original constitional gov't. Currently
there is about $18 Trillion dollars in private
offshore accounts owned by private american
citizens and beyond the reach and grab of
Obama's federal gov't. These funds could be
used to "re float" the american gov't and
financial system.
When the U.S.treasury collaspes...all entilement
program checks..; ie, social security, SSI, veterans
monthly benefits checks, etc..will stop being issued..
cos there will not be any >money< available to
priint and send out the checks..and the banks
will probably have closed.
Obama is quietly being paid $250 Million a
year to his offshore bank account by the
David Rockefella Foundation and the
RothChilds to destroy the amerircan republic
and the american economy as quickly as he
can from inside the oval office.This is his
real job. His Obamacare program is simply
part of his agenda.
IF you are content to live in a brutal soviet
police & welfare state and have NO personal
liberty....or any rights...keep sitting on your
couch and watching cable TV all day.You will
soon meet the armed and dangerous FEMA
squad personnel at your front door and then
deal with them as best you can...OR you can
become an active part of the 2nd american
revolution...and save your own country...
Scott Wayne. the MoneyWorkz[tm].
comcash1@gmail.com
l
ewwatch the collaspeingthere is nothing that the average ameiricanrcaner.
:-D
Oct 30, 2013 23:21:56 #
lone_ghost wrote:
That is weird, I tried several times on the quote reply but it always just adds my words to yours on your post.
Make sure you type your response either right before {quote=membername} or right after {/quote}. Don't type your response within the two bracketed HTML "quote" codes - that's reserved for the posting you are responding to. I didn't use actual brackets as that would screw up the coding of this response. Does this make sense?
Oct 30, 2013 23:36:08 #
OldSchool wrote:
Make sure you type your response either right before {quote=membername} or right after {/quote}. Don't type your response within the two bracketed HTML "quote" codes - that's reserved for the posting you are responding to. I didn't use actual brackets as that would screw up the coding of this response. Does this make sense?
It does, and thank you.
Oct 31, 2013 00:01:30 #
Oct 31, 2013 00:18:49 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
[quote=rumitoid]Below is an interesting article from this source:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.[/quote]
we are the United States of America. United meaning separate States united in a mutual enterprise. You know justice, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and all that. Slowly eroding the powers of the States leads us closer to the " United America ".
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5968-are-states-sovereign-in-america.html
Reading through many postings I kept seeing recurring themes of disobedience, division, and a movement bent on secession and civil war. It became obvious that despite many Internet political readers being more rooted in our history there is a representative voice echoing the belief of a large number of citizens. Sparking the discussion were legislatures in Arizona, New Hampshire, Washington, and Oklahoma introducing a general warning the 10th Amendment still applies. (In June of 2008 Oklahoma actually passed the legislation by a 92 to 3 margin while most of us slept.) Montana and Missouri are two examples of specific claims under the 10th Amendment with their focus on firearms and abortion.
There should be no surprise by those who believe this is a good movement others see it as a bad movement. In our lifetime states have not appeared to be sovereign nations unto themselves but merely a sub-category of government between the federal and city levels. Just as many believe we are a democracy the way history is taught combined with the changes we've instituted through Constitutional amendments and Supreme Court rulings it is easy to understand why opponents to this movement are confused.
The 16th Amendment created a system where the federal powers took money directly from the people and a funneling back to states began to occur. The 17th Amendment stripped the Legislative Branch from a true bicameral system of a Senate representing the states and a House representing the people to the facade of bicameralism as both chambers now represented the people. Even further back were the 14th Amendment alterations weakening the states sovereignty. Supreme Court cases over the past 60 years have given little credence to the 10th Amendment. However, we must remember the Supreme Court has given little credence to any of the founding principles since the 1930s. (For an analysis of SCOTUS assault read "The Constitution in Exile" or "Who Killed the Constitution.") When we consider Constitutional Law classes in our country focus more on modern events than any attempt to first embrace the original intent of those founding the United States of America it is easier to understand the confusion over the sovereignty question.
Combine this with what many mayors across the country asked President Obama to do this past week and we cannot blame any citizen for believing we are one nation and states are merely a sub-category. Articulated during news appearances by Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the mayors traveling to Washington D.C. did so to encourage the Stimulus Bill's quick passage and funds for cities are sent directly to the city without being filtered through the states. When mayors bypass governors while citizen watch without batting an eye who is to believe states are sovereign?
We've had this debate before when Federalist supporters (those actually wanting one nation) clashed ideologically with Anti-Federalists (those wanting recognition of states as sovereign nations). Would it surprise you to learn states, in the language of the day, were considered nations rather than a sub-category within a nation? In the Treaty of Paris King George III did not recognize one independent nation but 13 sovereign nations. According to Dr. Kevin Gutzman, "[b]ut sovereignty lay in the states. That was the first principle of American government." (Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, p. 16) When this was last debated the words of the 10th Amendment were crafted to protect the power and sovereignty in the states as the Anti-Federalist clearly understood the tyrannical nature of a single, federal level control.
Are we to clearly abandon, once and for all, the key principles that helped in making us a great United States of America? Many of us have grown to accept two very dangerous ideas already. As this recent movement points out too many believe states are not now, nor should they be, sovereign. Also, as we will discuss in another article, too many believe we are a democracy. As keystones for securing our grand experiment are abandoned we crumble. Pause long enough to study our history and attempt to clearly understand your beliefs so you more clearly understand the direction you support.[/quote]
we are the United States of America. United meaning separate States united in a mutual enterprise. You know justice, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and all that. Slowly eroding the powers of the States leads us closer to the " United America ".
Oct 31, 2013 00:33:03 #
Floyd Brown
Loc: Milwaukee WI
lone_ghost wrote:
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
I always love how both sides taught themselves as more closely following the ideals of the founding fathers when in actuality they are both just twisted versions of singular notions taken out of context for their own means. The truth is, neither of them are any where close to what the founding fathers intended for this country.
I say that is a fitting way to look at the issue.
Oct 31, 2013 00:44:27 #
comcash1
Loc: the UK
Hello there....
Thank you for your email warning. I'n not
yet familiar with how to post info on your
forum but I will quickly learn.
Your progressives, liberals, etc do not scare
or intimidate me.Until very recently I was a
democrat.Now I guess I'm a Tea Party
conservative cos what i see happening in
the current Congress..especially with Harry
Reid & his 4th Reicht..is absoltely disgusting.
I never thought that I would live to see the
Nazis of 1932 running the american congress.
But I plan on being part of the solution that
wll allow the average ameircan citizen to
somehow take back their country and their
gov't by 2016..even if that includes a goriilla
styled street level civi war with Obama's
FEMMA.
I'm a 75 yr phyiscally disabled vietnam combat
vet and unable to walk very well.But my mind
is still quiite good and I can use the internet
to open doors for people.My body may no'
longer be in workable ondition but my mind
works quite well.So I plan to be part of the
solution to allow the american citizens to take
back their country and their gov't from
Obama's criiminal kabal. Again, thank you for
your email warning...
Mr Scott
The MoneyWorkz[tm]
Thank you for your email warning. I'n not
yet familiar with how to post info on your
forum but I will quickly learn.
Your progressives, liberals, etc do not scare
or intimidate me.Until very recently I was a
democrat.Now I guess I'm a Tea Party
conservative cos what i see happening in
the current Congress..especially with Harry
Reid & his 4th Reicht..is absoltely disgusting.
I never thought that I would live to see the
Nazis of 1932 running the american congress.
But I plan on being part of the solution that
wll allow the average ameircan citizen to
somehow take back their country and their
gov't by 2016..even if that includes a goriilla
styled street level civi war with Obama's
FEMMA.
I'm a 75 yr phyiscally disabled vietnam combat
vet and unable to walk very well.But my mind
is still quiite good and I can use the internet
to open doors for people.My body may no'
longer be in workable ondition but my mind
works quite well.So I plan to be part of the
solution to allow the american citizens to take
back their country and their gov't from
Obama's criiminal kabal. Again, thank you for
your email warning...
Mr Scott
The MoneyWorkz[tm]
Oct 31, 2013 00:45:36 #
I bet against it being a bloody revolution. Imagine a State having the power to accept or reject a new law OR any existing law enacted by the Congress.
Imagine living in a State where school prayer was legal.
Where a landlord was free to rent to whomever he wished.
A State where businesses were free to hire, promote and fire w/o explanation.
Where a gay union can be called anything but a marriage.
Of course there would be blocs of States where the opposite of the above would be unlawful. So find a place to live that suits what you believe in and let others be free to live as they'd like....with like minded people.
The way we are forced to live today under an all powerful central government creates too much divisiveness. There are bound to be future rulings by the Supreme Court and future
laws enacted by the Congress that will divide us even further.
Let's just say we've outgrown our current system and it's time for us to find something that will work instead of tearing each other to shreds.
Think of a much smaller Federal Government with a much narrower focus. Call it a new era of States rights. It's probably the only way to save us from becoming more than one Nation.
Imagine living in a State where school prayer was legal.
Where a landlord was free to rent to whomever he wished.
A State where businesses were free to hire, promote and fire w/o explanation.
Where a gay union can be called anything but a marriage.
Of course there would be blocs of States where the opposite of the above would be unlawful. So find a place to live that suits what you believe in and let others be free to live as they'd like....with like minded people.
The way we are forced to live today under an all powerful central government creates too much divisiveness. There are bound to be future rulings by the Supreme Court and future
laws enacted by the Congress that will divide us even further.
Let's just say we've outgrown our current system and it's time for us to find something that will work instead of tearing each other to shreds.
Think of a much smaller Federal Government with a much narrower focus. Call it a new era of States rights. It's probably the only way to save us from becoming more than one Nation.
Oct 31, 2013 06:10:19 #
OldSchool wrote:
Make sure you type your response either right before {quote=membername} or right after {/quote}. Don't type your response within the two bracketed HTML "quote" codes - that's reserved for the posting you are responding to. I didn't use actual brackets as that would screw up the coding of this response. Does this make sense?
This still does not tell me how to respond OldSchool, to a quote. I think One Political is not working right as when I open it, it goes straight to some discussion and I don't always see a list? I have not said anything for a long time because it just seems like everyone is just blaming the other rather finding solutions? I hope this comes as a reply to your directions, but it does not always work for me.
Oct 31, 2013 06:10:47 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.