Question for the Americans.

[K626]

Had an interesting discussion with a friend today.

Are there states that could break away from America and survive?

Is it possible under the constitution?

What states are most likely?

Thanks for your feedback.

Peace

Klabs

[bearcow]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself.

[Jake]

Well, I think that individual states have been tossing the idea around since the civil war. I know that some states are darn near split in differing opinions. Other than the Southern states, ie Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisianna, Texas and more,,, (11 states make up the original confederate states that broke attempted to secede originally.) Vermont passed a resolution to secede from the union in 2004. Minnesota has been trying to secede for years now. California is a different planet anyways, and there has always been rumors that CA will secede. I can tell you that it is a completely different world living in some states. The federal government will not let that happen. There is also the idea of large chunks of states seceding from the whole. Like the upper penensula of Michigan seceding from Michigan. Originally, Texas seceded from Mexico. Will will take em' but we won't giv'm back. There are also Native American reservations that operate as sovereign independant nations.

I think it takes approval from both state legeslature's and congress. There is simply too much money flowing into the states from the Federal government to try and secede. IMOO... I do not think it will happen. not by vote, maybe by revolution... interesting topic. I may have to brush up on meh American history.

[Fred Steeves]

Hi Klabs, the state best equipped to do this would be Texas. They reluctantly joined the Union with the guarantee that if they became dissatisfied they could split into 10 different sovereign states, each represented by the usual 2 senators. That would give them some pretty heavy clout right there in the cesspit called D.C.

Doubtful if this would happen now though, things have gotten too infested with the federal cancer. The problem has moved well beyond the level it was created on. But, if they were going to give it a try, I'd pack up the wife, the dogs and the guns and resettle there. I've always admired the spirit of the Alamo, and am nowhere near alone in that sentiment here.

Of course the media would have all believe America is already pacified into subservience. Unfortunatelt they're probably 95% right on that, but if you want to see updated definitions of stubborn and defiant, just keep your eyes on that pesky 5%.

I know I went beyond just your question, but as you can tell I get fired up talking about rebellion and freedom.



Cheers,
Fred S.

[Seikou-Kishi]

Had an interesting discussion with a friend today.

Are there states that could break away from America and survive?

Is it possible under the constitution?

What states are most likely?

Thanks for your feedback.

Peace

Klabs

It's possible under the Constitution: the constitution was ratified by all the participating states. The Federal government, which depends on the states, has since decided, however, that they can't secede, but the federal government may have authority where something involves multiple states, but when it comes to federalism itself, it takes agreement between the states and the federal government together, not a dictation from on high. The federal government has no authority to demand that states remain in the union, but what that translates to in practicalities is a different thing entirely.

[Sowelu]

Texas and Washington are most likely... Texas has tried to declare itself as independant before but politics get in the way. I do think though that if they do succeed, they will become a target :S

[Lord Sidious]

Texas is a state by treaty.
That treaty can be anulled and they are back to being the Republic of Texas.

[king anthony]

If the District of Columbia can be sovereign, how can not other (independent) states do the same!?

[Update - May 12 2011]

Some have misunderstood my post as a question, so if I may clarify; it was a rhetorical question as it ended with "!?" - the statement is not so much about (corporate) government on any level; rather, regarding each within.

[K626]

Hi Klabs, the state best equipped to do this would be Texas. They reluctantly joined the Union with the guarantee that if they became dissatisfied they could split into 10 different sovereign states, each represented by the usual 2 senators. That would give them some pretty heavy clout right there in the cesspit called D.C.

Doubtful if this would happen now though, things have gotten too infested with the federal cancer. The problem has moved well beyond the level it was created on. But, if they were going to give it a try, I'd pack up the wife, the dogs and the guns and resettle there. I've always admired the spirit of the Alamo, and am nowhere near alone in that sentiment here.

Of course the media would have all believe America is already pacified into subservience. Unfortunatelt they're probably 95% right on that, but if you want to see updated definitions of stubborn and defiant, just keep your eyes on that pesky 5%.

I know I went beyond just your question, but as you can tell I get fired up talking about rebellion and freedom.



Cheers,
Fred S.

He is adamant it will be Texas. But I don't understand how they will survive. Won't the federal Govt move in and create a state of emergency and take Texas back?

cheers

K

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Texas is a state by treaty.
That treaty can be anulled and they are back to being the Republic of Texas.

What kind of treaty are we talking about? Both sides have to agree? I'm fairly igonorant about U.S. federal laws.

cheers

K

[K626]

Well, I think that individual states have been tossing the idea around since the civil war. I know that some states are darn near split in differing opinions. Other than the Southern states, ie Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisianna, Texas and more,,, (11 states make up the original confederate states that broke attempted to secede originally.) Vermont passed a resolution to secede from the union in 2004. Minnesota has been trying to secede for years now. California is a different planet anyways, and there has always been rumors that CA will secede. I can tell you that it is a completely different world living in some states. The federal government will not let that happen. There is also the idea of large chunks of states seceding from the whole. Like the upper penensula of Michigan seceding from Michigan. Originally, Texas seceded from Mexico. Will will take em' but we won't giv'm back. There are also Native American reservations that operate as sovereign independant nations.

I think it takes approval from both state legeslature's and congress. There is simply too much money flowing into the states from the Federal government to try and secede. IMOO... I do not think it will happen. not by vote, maybe by revolution... interesting topic. I may have to brush up on meh American history.

Well this is it Jake. Congress would vote it down.

K

[Lord Sidious]

[/COLOR]
Texas is a state by treaty.
That treaty can be anulled and they are back to being the Republic of Texas.

What kind of treaty are we talking about? Both sides have to agree? I'm fairly igonorant about U.S. federal laws.

cheers

K

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

[K626]

[/COLOR]
Texas is a state by treaty.
That treaty can be anulled and they are back to being the Republic of Texas.

What kind of treaty are we talking about? Both sides have to agree? I'm fairly igonorant about U.S. federal laws.

cheers

K

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

Thanks. Read that earlier but the abstract is probably more important ie the will of the Texans and so on...

...and there is the small matter of DyessAFB and the nukes...


cheers K

[noprophet]

There's also a tongue in cheek movement called the republic of cascadia that would consist of washington, oregon, northern california and british columbia forming a separate union.

The idea came from a book called ecotopia -which is excellent if you ever have a chance to check it out.

[East Sun]

Don't think I would ever happen. There are powers that operate on a global scale that call the shots in the final analysis. But if anything was to further their goals then it could happen.

[thunder24]

The constitution aplies to the corporation of each state I think, so are we talking soverign states or corporations we call states?

[king anthony]

I say, rather then seek to take what belongs to "them" - each should take back what each once had and owns now -self; for ownership of self was taken underhandedly and "voluntary compliance" is what "they" need to continue. Why seek to change the world that belongs to "them", when all each needs to do is change self!?

[Seikou-Kishi]

There's also a tongue in cheek movement called the republic of cascadia that would consist of washington, oregon, northern california and british columbia forming a separate union.

The idea came from a book called ecotopia -which is excellent if you ever have a chance to check it out.

Isn't that whee Cascada lives? lol

[blake]

[QUOTE=K626;213859]Had an interesting discussion with a friend today.

Are there states that could break away from America and survive?

Is it possible under the constitution?

Hello K626,

A topic dear to my heart. But if I start typing, I will be in my office longer than I have time for this evening. So I will, for now, offer this article instead to nourish food for thought until I have time to respond. Dr. Edwin Vieria is a constitutional scholar, with a law degree from Harvard University. I hardly agree with everything he says but he gives you good facts and good logic. There are many small countries smaller than New England that do quite nicely, so I don't think the size of a state or group of states matters. Northern New England is quite different than southern New England and might be in too much conflict with each other to secede as one nation. The gentleman who is leading the seccession movement in Vermont, Dr Thomas Naylor, had wanted to join up with Maine, New Hampshire and the Canadian Maritime Provinces to form a New Country. He wrote a book on how it would be possible. I beleive the right to secede is written into the New Hampshire state constitution. It is a hot topic that I would love to sit by the fireplace and chat all evening about! I wouldn't want to see it happen, but since the federal government is so out of control, the hand may be forced. I am not against the idea.

Although I live in the north, I do refer to the "Civil War" as the "War of Northern Aggression". I think the South had every right to secede. The Federal government has been overstepping its authority and power for too many decades. And with the fall of The South, the federal government escaped the restraints of the cage, that the Federal Consitution had set up for it to keep it from getting tyrannical, and sadly our liberties and freedoms have been eroding since. Time to get the Federal Goverenment back within its consitutional limits or I do beleive a revolution will happen.

But for now............

The Secession of the Union and Collapse of America’s Empire
– 2010/07/20
Edwin Vieira on Secession, New World Order and the American Republic




Pastor Chuck Baldwin’s recent commentary, “Breakup of U.S. Is Inevitable”, sets out a provocative thesis in support of “secession”. Essentially, his argument is that:

•The United States is about to break up into small fragments.
•This disintegration fits into the plan of the global elitists to construct a “New World Order” and a “world government”.
•American patriots should welcome, participate in, assist, and even accelerate this breakup through “secession” of one or more States. And,
•“Secession” will defeat the New World Order, at least with respect to the “seceding” States.
It may simply be that my mind is not sufficiently plastic to wrap itself around this argument—but I sense that something is missing here.


Pastor Chuck Baldwin
Now, I agree with Pastor Baldwin that “freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration—and even fury”. But I fear that he makes rather a large leap of logic to conclude that “ State secession is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty”.

First, Pastor Baldwin asserts that “[t]he breakup of the US in inevitable! Short of another Great Awakening, nothing can stop it.” Well, I wonder if anything “in the course of human events” (as the Declaration of Independence put it) is truly “inevitable”, if enough people, sufficiently committed to another outcome, oppose it. And, as Pastor Baldwin himself correctly observes, “freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration—and even fury”. So maybe a new “Great Awakening”, in the political sense, is actually emerging.

Besides, it appears that Pastor Baldwin’s analysis may be mixing apples with oranges. For instance, he states that “[i]t is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more and more becoming a global empire.” “Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse of its own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous.” To which I say: Amen! But is “the American empire” actually America; or is it the twisted, unconstitutional, unholy perversion of America that has been temporarily imposed upon WE THE PEOPLE by the globalists in our midst in aid of their own megalomaniacal schemes for world hegemony?

And if “the American empire” were to collapse—as I, for one, anticipate that it will—why should the real America, founded upon the quite anti-imperialistic principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have to collapse with it? Even more to the point, why should any patriot want the real America to collapse? Is it not possible that, with and even because of the collapse of “the American empire”, the real America could be restored and rejuvenated? And would not that be a desirable result?

In addition, if Pastor Baldwin is correct (as I believe he is) that “no empire can sustain itself”, then why should we conclusively presume that the global empire of the New World Order could “sustain itself”, or perhaps even come into being in the first place? It would seem that, the larger the empire, the weaker it must be, and that therefore prognostications of collapse will most likely be accurate when the imperialists attempt to impose their structure upon the entire world.

Second, Pastor Baldwin tells us that “[g]lobalists are already planning America’s breakup. Indeed, their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture.” Now, there can be no doubt that, on this score, Pastor Baldwin is accurate. The globalists’ New World Order cannot survive, or even come into existence, with an intact, economically and militarily strong, and legally independent (that is, sovereign) America standing against it. America frustrated the globalists’ first scheme for “world government”—the League of Nations.

And although America was roped in to their next scheme—the United Nations—a large proportion of her population has always been (and now remains) at least suspicious of, and even openly antagonistic to, that institution. So, if America cannot be absorbed into some supra-national “halfway house” to global government, such as the projected North American Union, the globalists would like to see her balkanized into a number of mutually quarrelsome mini-states that they can manage politically by the age-old device of “divide and rule”.


Dr. Edwin Vieira
My question to Pastor Baldwin, though, is: “Divide and rule” being the globalists’ own strategy for bringing America down and setting the New World Order up, why should patriots assist them, through “secession” or in any other way? As Sun Tzu taught, “the highest form of generalship is to baulk the enemy’s plans”, not to accede to, let alone to aid and abet, them. See Sun Tzu on the Art of War, Lionel Giles translation (Shanghai, China, 1910), Chapter III, § 3, at 17.

True enough, if “secession” were a way “to baulk the enemy’s plans”, things would be different. But that would depend upon the practicality of “secession” for that purpose. Pastor Baldwin
asserts that “all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the ‘unconstitutionality’ and ‘impracticality’ of secession can do so to their hearts’ content. It changes nothing. The breakup is coming.” Well, “[t]he breakup [may be] coming”—but, even if it is, that does not necessarily compel the conclusion that “secession” is the best way, or even any way, to deal with the situation. Certainly, if “secession” were both constitutional and practical, it would be worthy of consideration.

Under some extreme circumstances, “secession” would constitute a possible option, even were it unconstitutional, if it were nonetheless practical. But if “secession” is both unconstitutional and impractical, how can it be (as Pastor Baldwin claims) “the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty”? If “secession” cannot be shown to be workable, it is not a viable option at all—unless one subscribes to “the Divine Wind” approach to national defense.

Also, I suspect that, far from fearing “secession”, the globalists would actually welcome it, because they anticipate that a single “seceding” State or even a gaggle of “seceding” States could not possibly stand up to the New World Order. And every move towards “secession” would accelerate the breakup of America upon which (even Pastor Baldwin agrees) the globalists’ plans depend.

I believe that an united America, operating according to her Constitution and uncompromisingly asserting her national sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence, could successfully fend off the New World Order—although, perhaps, it might be a long-drawn-out and close-run thing. I believe that the globalists think so, too, and are doubtlessly sore disturbed by that distinct possibility. But what lone State or little group of States could put up such resistance? That one or a few States (in Pastor Baldwin’s words) “with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and globalism as it approaches, [might] muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom” would not, unfortunately, be enough. Something sufficiently strong must stand behind any such “line in the sand” to keep the New World Order from crossing it at will. As Mao Tse-tung rightly opined, “‘[p]olitical power grows out of the barrel of a gun’”, not out of abstract “line[s drawn] in the sand”. Quotations From Chairman

Mao Tse-tung (Peking, China, 1966), at 61. The Second Amendment agrees (although on a much more principled basis): “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” And Article 13 of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights is even more precise: “[A] well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state”. “[L]ine[s] in the sand”, without lead and steel—and, I should add, silver and gold—in the hands of “the people” to back them up, are as evanescent as gnats and of as little consequence.

At the present moment, any State which attempts to “secede” will simply be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, because no State is prepared—in terms of territorial expanse, size of population, natural resources, economic development, and especially military preparedness—for both “secession” and subsequent protracted conflict with the globalists and their New World Order.

For instance, at the present moment no State (as I have pointed out repeatedly) has taken the first step either towards actually adopting an alternative economically sound currency (to free her from the Federal Reserve System) or towards actually revitalizing her Militia (to provide her with true “homeland security”), let alone both—and without which two reforms, at a minimum, all calls for “secession” hold about as much water as a sieve. If there is a single State which is now ready, politically and practically, for “secession”, I should appreciate having someone identify that State.

And if, as I suspect, no such State exists, then I should appreciate having someone explain precisely how any State can be made ready for “secession” in the near future. How “secession” might actually be accomplished, according to a plan the efficacy of which is verifiable or falsifiable, is, to my pedestrian mind, more important than whether “secession” might theoretically be a good idea—because if “secession” cannot be made to work very soon, it hardly seems worth discussing so late in the day.

In short, I should think that, in the absence of a practical blueprint for “secession” that shows not only how “secession” will come about but also precisely how it will “baulk the enemy’s plans” as to the New World Order, the only prudent course for patriots is to do whatever can be done to retake America—as a whole—State by State, to restore her to true constitutional government, and to reassert her sovereignty under the Declaration of Independence.

© 2010 Edwin Vieira, Jr. – All Rights Reserved

Your faithful Editor responds:

Dr. Vieira has a long record of opposing secession. He has written extensively about the constitutionality of secession, and has concluded that it is not possible. Of course I disagree with many of Vieira’s opinions.

Mr. Vieira also has his educational pedigree from Harvard, one of the very universities that helps fill the District of Columbia with eager and willing big-government sycophants. It would be indelicate of me to write him off as a Yankee lawyer predisposed to protecting the interests of Harvard and the DC gang. Indelicate…not necessarily incorrect. But one can be right on some issues and wrong on others.

I am far less concerned about the machinations of the New World Order crowd than Vieira and Baldwin.

Vieira’s assertion that America could resist the New World Order with adherence to its Declaration of Independence and Constitution is naivete at its highest exhibition. What he omits is that the Declaration of Independence is a document that asserts the sovereignty of thirteen “free and independent States.” Jefferson’s label of the “United States of America” was a decription of states united under a common purpose, not a new nation. There was no new nation at that moment. Even under the Articles of Confederation that were ratified after the war, the states were independent and sovereign nations.

So, a Declaration of Independence is only fit for a state asserting its sovereignty against the tyranny of an empire. It is absurd for a fifty-state conglomeration of un-sovereign serf states to make noises about independence when they cannot muster the courage to become individually sovereign once more.

As to the efficacy of the Constitution, I refer you once again to the Lysander Spooner epic work “No Treason.” Spooner proves unerringly and irrefutably that the US Constitution has not now, nor ever at any time, held status as a legally enforceable document. So, I find that Vieira’s reliance on a constitutional argument is fatally flawed from its foundational premise.

Keeping a nation of fifty states and over 300 million people together as a single national unit has proven unworkable. When “We The People” was written by Thomas Jefferson, the population of the thirteen colonies was less than 3 million. So, each state was only a few hundred thousand souls. Smaller units of government more closely available to the people always function more efficiently. So, from the most elemental argument, smaller states are inherently more desirable than big nations.

Vieira is entirely correct that no state can secede without the power of the purse and the power of the sword. He is also correct to assert that no state possesses either of these powers and that no state is even preparing to secede.

The practical blueprint for secession that Vieira desires is quite simple, but not found in Baldwin’s article. But here it is:

•Establish a money system based only upon gold and silver. That is the power of the purse.
•Re-establish the “well-regulated militia.” That is the power of the sword.
•Call a constitution convention in the state to rewrite the existing state constitution into a document of governance fit for a nation.
•Draft a Declaration of Independence and an Ordinance of Secession.
• Present the Declaration and Ordinance to the proper Federal authorities.
Done! Secession completed. Now the REAL work begins.

The practical blueprint for secession omits the practical realities of politics. To wit, no state government will consider secession until Washington’s system collapses. No state will voluntarily secede until the economic system is so hopelessly, irrecoverably destroyed that Washington can offer nothing more than hyperinflation and martial law. And even in the face of that desperate situation, only a handful of states will secede. The rest will meekly await their orders from their DC masters.

In conclusion, Vieira has deemed secession both unconstitutional and impractical. I assert that while secession is presently impractical, the constitutionality of secession is irrelevant.

Secession is the Hope for Mankind. Who will be first?

Edwin Vieria is the notable author of “Pieces of Eight|The Constitution and the Dollar.”

[Darla Ken Pearce]

Texas may be a part of the U.S. but they have laws that nullify actions made in other states. For instance, if you buy a car in California they won't sell it to you if you're from Texas or related to anyone who is....because they can't repossess it in Texas. Texans have an attitude of being separate in every way they can be from the original union.

There is supposed to be a huge rift coming that will render the U.S. into two areas of land along the Madrid fault lines. While we wait to see if this happens, it would sure change everything as far as the States and their rights go and the Feds would lose all power with a huge earthquake that might cut Washinton D.C. off from the rest of us in the Midwest and Western States, they've never really gained control over most of the States anyway ~ yet it is the Feds and Military who are the ones causing weather changes and those quakes, so what's that all about? And what a sad plight they might cause if they continue their wasteful and destructive ways. Like cutting off your nose to spite your face, eh? So sad.

I did a lot of reseach on the Lands issues between States and Federal government and found a bonanza and a virtual untold story revealed of betrayal and mischief starting back with the Founding Fathers.

In brief: it seems that the original 13 States had to cede (give up all their land) and then it was returned to them by the new Federal Government as established in those days. Each of the 13 did so and their lands were returned for the use of mainly the the citizens who lived there and this greatly benefited them.

Yet it was far different for other Western States who joined later. The same rules applied with the provision that as in the other cases, their lands would be returned even though they also ceded them to the Feds. However, in the case of the Western States such as Idaho, Montana, Wymoing, and so forth, they reneiged and did not give those lands back. Speaking on behalf of Idaho which only was given back less than 10% of their total land mass and therefore Idaho has hardly any people due to the huge amount of Federal Public Lands and designated Wilderness Areas off limits to the people who live there ~ and this was allowed to stand.

Those states completely lost use of those lands for all practical purposes ~ forever. It was a tremendous lie that still stands and has impoverished the Cities and Counties of these States, especially when they came in and closed down the forests, logging, fishing, hunting, if that wasn't bad enough, they inserted predators against the remaining farmers; reintroducing Canadian Wolves and Grizzlies to make the farms go away and a source of food and many livelihoods disappear. And disappear they did along with Elk, Moose, Deer, Black Bears and many other species that were valuable. These actions impoverished the people who live there.

It is, however, one of the reasons I love to live there. Another concrete jungle is not really desirable but still and all, a huge and ugly betrayal that is very common in the Western States. Montana for one, plays ball with the Federal govenment and they have excellent roads and lots of money for road improvements. Idaho balks at everything Federal and so they are filled with freer people, and dirt roads instead.

We, who live in America are due for an honest shake up anyway ~ so whatever happens may be for the best in this regard. Lies and lies upon lies have been covered up ~ not just what you've heard about but our entire historic past~ but you know, everything will come out in the wash of Earth changes. The times and the people ~ they are a changing for the better no matter how bleak things may appear ~ it just isn't necessarily so. And so it is.... Much love xoxoxoxox

[king anthony]

Time to get the Federal Goverenment back within its consitutional limits or I do beleive a revolution will happen.

I say, what is there to take back and consider how "they" imposed is how it will have to be taken from "them". To rely on the thoughts and words of others will not make change - change for how things can be; leave "them" to dwell with themselves and leave each to be with each other.

[blake]

Time to get the Federal Goverenment back within its consitutional limits or I do beleive a revolution will happen.

I say, what is there to take back and consider how "they" imposed is how it will have to be taken from "them". To rely on the thoughts and words of others will not make change - change for how things can be; leave "them" to dwell with themselves and leave each to be with each other.

Hello King Anthony,

I am sorry, I must be tired. I don't quite get what you are saying, could you please clarify your main point? I think you are saying that you beleive there is nothing to take back from the goverenment, and that we all should just ignore the government and do our own thing???????? Please let me know if I am understanding this correctly, or if you meant something else?

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[Whiskey_Mystic]

California is the seventh largest economy in the world. It has massive agriculture, high technology industries including genetics and information (Silicon Valley), mineral resources, oil, multiple deepwater ports, the world's largest concentration of entertainment media production, thriving tourism, water resources (LA excluded), and many other strong resources.

I think that if any state tried to secede, it would be civil war unless it all happened at once and the individual states reformed into smaller republics.

Northern California and Southern California are culturally and politcally opposed to each other, so most likely Northern California would do better joining Washington and Oregon. This was actually described in a badly written book called Ecotopia decades ago.

[king anthony]

I think you are saying that you beleive there is nothing to take back from the goverenment, and that we all should just ignore the government and do our own thing????????

I say, you understand and used your words to clarify; individual sovereignty is not a complicated thing to obtain - as one does not need to know anything about what is now (law/politics/corporate state and country) to make change - for these things belong to "them" (the ruling class).

How can one be successful when they make up the rules as they go!?

Before state, was there not individual sovereignty - where one can stand before another and determine winner by their choice (a shootout)!? The state (sheriff) would only intervene when one did not consent.

To ignore will not be easy, as "they" (the ruling class) will fight hard and unfairly to maintain what they have - control. I say, there is no need to revolt (as in revolution) because it will lead to (a bloody) conflict; this is because "they" used the blood of many to make their goals possible.

All that is needed to be done, peacefully, is give notice to "them" (the ruling class/government) and say, "I am free" and return what is "theirs" to "them" (birth certificate, driver's license, ect). I am not telling or implying what others should do, I am simply stating all that needs to be done.

No force, no guns, no bombs, no blood... see what "they" use in return.

[Lost Soul]

If the District of Columbia can be sovereign, how can not other (independent) states do the same!?

The District of Columbia is only sovereign because it is a wee bit of land that may be directly controlled by Congress. It was created out of land from Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia part has long been seceded back to The Old Dominion.

California is unlike to secede. It is too dependent on the Federal government for $$$.

On the issue of secession, many New England states in the early 1800s thought it was legal. Even Massachusetts considered seceding for a while.

Not to get into the Civil War, but the mistake was firing on Sumter. Had the Confederates left Sumter alone, Major Anderson would have abandoned that fort in 24 hours and he even told them so. Not waiting was a big mistake that cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

[king anthony]

The District of Columbia is only sovereign because it is a wee bit of land that may be directly controlled by Congress. It was created out of land from Maryland and Virginia. The Virginia part has long been seceded back to The Old Dominion.

Thank you for quoting my post; however, my question was rhetorical with a deeper meaning.

[giovonni]

i like to say anything is possible when and after the stink hits the fan (if you get my drift) :rolleyes:

i sense the country :usa2: will break -up ( possibilly) into several regional economic areas (loosely) based on their geographic proximity and mutual security concerns.

congress :director: :pound: people

[K626]

Poll added for clarity.

cheers

K

[GlassSteagallfan]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself.

...and can create 5 states?

Also, (not sure of this): if 33 states agree, the Federal Government can be abolished.

[starsmoonmtns]

Texas is a state by treaty.
That treaty can be anulled and they are back to being the Republic of Texas.
Not to mention Montana is in the same process as Texas.... The Republic of Montana/Texas etc., will Imo happen eventually.........

[DeBron]

The topic of fairness would come up and there are just too many people here that aren't from here and the ones that would ultimately lose(again) would be those who are indigenous to the area and those forced to be here long ago.

[Lord Sidious]

[/COLOR]
Texas is a state by treaty.
That treaty can be anulled and they are back to being the Republic of Texas.

What kind of treaty are we talking about? Both sides have to agree? I'm fairly igonorant about U.S. federal laws.

cheers

K

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

Thanks. Read that earlier but the abstract is probably more important ie the will of the Texans and so on...

...and there is the small matter of DyessAFB and the nukes...


cheers K

I would suspect that the Texans would say that they are THEIR nukes now.
Oh and their flying thingys too. :p

[K626]

[/COLOR]
Texas is a state by treaty.
That treaty can be anulled and they are back to being the Republic of Texas.

What kind of treaty are we talking about? Both sides have to agree? I'm fairly igonorant about U.S. federal laws.

cheers

K

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

Thanks. Read that earlier but the abstract is probably more important ie the will of the Texans and so on...

...and there is the small matter of DyessAFB and the nukes...


cheers K

I would suspect that the Texans would say that they are THEIR nukes now.
Oh and their flying thingys too. :p

Might come in handy if push comes to shove. Wouldn't expect Texas to back down. ;)

K

[Fred Steeves]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself.

...and can create 5 states?



10 states. I believe they would only do that if there was any intent at all to stay in the Union. It would give them the clout of 20 senators. Otherwise they'd just "split". (pardon the pun)

Cheers,
Fred S.

[Lord Sidious]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself.

...and can create 5 states?



10 states. I believe they would only do that if there was any intent at all to stay in the Union. It would give them the clout of 20 senators. Otherwise they'd just "split". (pardon the pun)

Cheers,
Fred S.

The ''british'' empire split for the same reason.
Once, they had one vote in the league of nations.
Now, they have many, many votes.

[Fred Steeves]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself.

...and can create 5 states?



10 states. I believe they would only do that if there was any intent at all to stay in the Union. It would give them the clout of 20 senators. Otherwise they'd just "split". (pardon the pun)

Cheers,
Fred S.

The ''british'' empire split for the same reason.
Once, they had one vote in the league of nations.
Now, they have many, many votes.

Hey thanks Sid, that's interesting, never thought of it that way. I would still assume that this was not the only reason. Mass rebellions? Trade the bars you can see for the ones you can't with the central banking system. This would be a great combination package.

Cheers,
Fred S.

[toothpick]

None of them will leave the USA.
They get too much money from the feds.

toothpick

[starsmoonmtns]

Well, I think that individual states have been tossing the idea around since the civil war. I know that some states are darn near split in differing opinions. Other than the Southern states, ie Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisianna, Texas and more,,, (11 states make up the original confederate states that broke attempted to secede originally.) Vermont passed a resolution to secede from the union in 2004. Minnesota has been trying to secede for years now. California is a different planet anyways, and there has always been rumors that CA will secede. I can tell you that it is a completely different world living in some states. The federal government will not let that happen. There is also the idea of large chunks of states seceding from the whole. Like the upper penensula of Michigan seceding from Michigan. Originally, Texas seceded from Mexico. Will will take em' but we won't giv'm back. There are also Native American reservations that operate as sovereign independant nations.


I think it takes approval from both state legeslature's and congress. There is simply too much money flowing into the states from the Federal government to try and secede. IMOO... I do not think it will happen. not by vote, maybe by revolution... interesting topic. I may have to brush up on meh American history.


Jake, there is also a lot of states denying money from the fed gvt due to certain restrictions/requirements....don't be to quick to assume that 'those people in those states and reservations' will not secede due to this opinion. 'things' are running out... money hmmmmmmmmmmmm and the gold is probably almost all in paraquay!

[K626]

Well, I think that individual states have been tossing the idea around since the civil war. I know that some states are darn near split in differing opinions. Other than the Southern states, ie Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisianna, Texas and more,,, (11 states make up the original confederate states that broke attempted to secede originally.) Vermont passed a resolution to secede from the union in 2004. Minnesota has been trying to secede for years now. California is a different planet anyways, and there has always been rumors that CA will secede. I can tell you that it is a completely different world living in some states. The federal government will not let that happen. There is also the idea of large chunks of states seceding from the whole. Like the upper penensula of Michigan seceding from Michigan. Originally, Texas seceded from Mexico. Will will take em' but we won't giv'm back. There are also Native American reservations that operate as sovereign independant nations.


I think it takes approval from both state legeslature's and congress. There is simply too much money flowing into the states from the Federal government to try and secede. IMOO... I do not think it will happen. not by vote, maybe by revolution... interesting topic. I may have to brush up on meh American history.


Jake, there is also a lot of states denying money from the fed gvt due to certain restrictions/requirements....don't be to quick to assume that 'those people in those states and reservations' will not secede due to this opinion. 'things' are running out... money hmmmmmmmmmmmm and the gold is probably almost all in paraquay!



Also the time is fast approaching when independance and self-governance will be more prized than shopping malls and bloated administration meddling.

K

[starsmoonmtns]

quoting darla: It is, however, one of the reasons I love to live there. Another concrete jungle is not really desirable but still and all, a huge and ugly betrayal that is very common in the Western States. Montana for one, plays ball with the Federal govenment and they have excellent roads and lots of money for road improvements. Idaho balks at everything Federal and so they are filled with freer people, and dirt roads instead.

Then why is it the state of Idaho let both Conoco and Exxon/Mobil through the beautiful scenic Lochsa River just these past few wks/days on their way to making more fortune and destruction.... HUH? The interstate via Washington nor Canada could not fit the requirements needed to move those giant size loads.....give me a fkn brake! http://fightinggoliath.org/ (http://fightinggoliath.org/)

Check out the link above, they 'oil companies' 'big business' and 'corporate greed' as usual are ruining this planet!

[Lost Soul]

I dislike my state as there's too many control freaks here. I'll soon be moving to a state with fewer control freaks. Either way, it doesn't bother me if the federation is dissolved. Fed.Gov is too big and too imposing today.

[K626]

I dislike my state as there's too many control freaks here. I'll soon be moving to a state with fewer control freaks. Either way, it doesn't bother me if the federation is dissolved. Fed.Gov is too big and too imposing today.


What kind of control freakery are we talking about?

K

[Mark Aldebaran]

If the District of Columbia can be sovereign, how can not other (independent) states do the same!?

Washington DC is part of America but is not a state. It has protectorate status, similar to Puerto Rica and Guam.
In reality, it is part of the elite tripartite godhead: Rome, City of London, DC.

[king anthony]

Washington DC is part of America but is not a state. It has protectorate status, similar to Puerto Rica and Guam.
In reality, it is part of the elite tripartite godhead: Rome, City of London, DC.

Thank you for quoting me; I say, you do not having understanding of my words.

[Isostool]

I'll have vanilla please.

..what? oh sorry. I thought there was icecream.

[Whiskey_Mystic]

Yes, states do get money from the feds. Where does that money come from? Taxes taken out of the states? What does the math look like? California could make up the difference through trade policy with other states and the pacific rim, in my uneducated opinion. (this is just a fun theoretical discussion)

[K626]

Yes, states do get money from the feds. Where does that money come from? Taxes taken out of the states? What does the math look like? California could make up the difference through trade policy with other states and the pacific rim, in my uneducated opinion. (this is just a fun theoretical discussion)

IMO California could easily get out.

K

[Darla Ken Pearce]

Hey, the good pastor is about to lose his congregation. Once facts become known about how we have been lied to and deceived, not only by the federal government but by the churches, well, there is no going back.

This whole paradigm 3D matrix will go away once everyone is fully conscious and those good ole' Solar Winds keep blowing in consciousness and there is no place for anyone to hide. The light will prevail and kindness will reign instead of endless wars.

Most of our arguments in this thread ~ will become a moot point and very quickly now. Things have already gone too far towards the light of good judgment and reason to ever go back to the old useless and oppressive ways. We've simply outgrown them. A New Earth has been born for those who can see the signs all around us.

The Universe calls us forth now.

You are each voicing those great concerns with much reason and thoughtfulness. What has gone on in our good name is something that is going to knock all of our socks off.

In the spirit of forgiveness which will become necessary quickly, we should rather be thinking of what kind of divisions we really want in this new construct and creations that lies ahead. Could we not enlarge our world including the wealth of all people and honor their traditions without warring over them?

Can you enlarge your heart to add Canada and how about Paris? Do you know anyone of value in the Netherlands, you'd like to adopt into your own county and country however large of small you choose it to be? How about Australia? Expand those horizons! Look at it from many directions and don't be bogged down because nothing can go forward when too many doubts arise without cherishment.

Most of the questions we should be asking instead here, involve the enlargement and projection of a kinder, more joyous world, and we get to pick what lies within it's boundaries. Remember once you set yours up, if you do not have peace within your own heart, you may end up in local wars ~ as in wars within your own heart ~ and your own guides who surround you now, may be advising you differently, encouraging you to enlarge, create, enlarge, create and ascend. How would this pan out and look? Think about it carefully.

This new Earth will be created by us. Someday we have the ability to become planets in our own right, so these exercises will become clearer as we go along. For now, it is necessary and timely for us to step into our own light and power as co-creators.

Having gone through these great trials on Earth on behalf of the whole universe. Think about a world of your own making. Through your thoughts and actions you can bring it into manifestation. Some of the elements you choose may be used here on the New Earth and also in many other galaxies, so it's always worthwhile to consider these things. What is the desire of your heart? Do you remember? Well, Ask.

In fact, we have no further limitations and can go forth and create, we have just forgotten how powerful we are as chips off the old block ~ of a greater diamond.

Start off by imagining, "what if?" Consider every problem from new facets now open to us without limitations. Step into your own light and powers of being. Manifestations then easily follows and before you know it, we are there with fabulous new vistas.

Every old system and structure of the 3D paradigm will fall insofar as the Earth and those who choose to ascend with her are concerned. Those who are locked into the old paradigm will leave for another 3D planet like Earth that is still in the process at an earlier state of development. Some like the ways things are ~ I know it's hard to imagine ~ and have become addicted to 3D drama and strife and they may choose to continue this path. All of us have free will whether we can see it or not. We do.

One path is not better than another it's just a free will choice that has to be made. Where is your heart? You see, the whole structure of duality, the limitations of good and evil, cold and hot, have greatly expanded with our experiences on Earth. This experience had the greatest value even if we're unsure how this all makes sense.

Now a whole new world opens up to us in the 4th and 5th dimension and way beyond. These are different like two colors versus a full rainbow of new facets that have been brought forth with new ones arriving all the time. When you can define those two alternatives of duality push your thoughts out further into the universe and examine ideas like a diamond you hold in your hand. Let the sun glisten and sparkle and highlight all the many other colors, choices, and facets now open to us. Each one represents a new vista open to us. Stargates await and all Portholes are open to us.

Enlarge your heart. Enlarge your vista of potentialities. Go forward in thought and deed. Ask for miracles and they will come. It is our time now.

We are nearly out of this old polarity and what a fabulous new arena lies ahead of us. Don't get bogged down in 3D constructs ~ too much ~ as they are all going away and it is to our benefit to allow them safe passage elsewhere and soon. Much love! xoxoxoxoxo

[Seikou-Kishi]

Your posts are consistently great, DKJP

[Ba-ba-Ra]

I agree that the PTB would never allow it. But.... Mother Nature or Divine Intelligence might have their own way.

You're all aware of the current flooding of the Mississippi - now What If the New Madrid fault goes off in the next few weeks and adds another 7.9 earthquake to the flooding? U.S. would be crippled dividing East from West.

And here's another few What If's:

1) That volcano they keep talking about around the Canary Islands goes off & sends a Tsunami into the East Coast of U.S. inundating D.C. & NYC or
2) The fault along the Pacific Northwest causing major damage to both Washington and Oregon and sending a tsunami which would cripple Calif. as well or
3) Big one hits Calif
4) or one of the super volcanoes goes off: Yellowstone, Long Valley or Crater Lake

Or several of the above at the same time - and that's just mentioning a few possibilities. The PTB have been trying to play god with Mother Nature for some time now, but they don't have the complete manual and they might start a snowball rolling down hill that they can't stop, which might allow for each state to administer to their own, due to the confusion that would ensue.

[jackovesk]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself.

Not with 'Good Old Boy' NWO Globalist Rick Perry's Bilderberg Visit Violation Of the Logan Act you won't!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/may2007/310507perry.jpg

This bloke is so Dumb! Even Howdy-Doody would disown him!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/310507rickperry.htm

[ulli]

If the District of Columbia can be sovereign, how can not other (independent) states do the same!?

Washington DC is part of America but is not a state. It has protectorate status, similar to Puerto Rica and Guam.
In reality, it is part of the elite tripartite godhead: Rome, City of London, DC.


Sorry, this needs a correction:

It's Puerto RICO with O at the end....not Puerto Rica

often gets confused with Costa Rica

where tourists arrive and while still on the plane are wondering why on earth they weren't flying over water

as would be expected when you are traveling to an island....

maybe the reason why tourism in Costa Rica has boomed in recent years is because of all those people

who thought they had booked a vacation in Puerto Rica...

[Seikou-Kishi]

Washington D.C. does not have protectorate status, it is a federal district. Protectorate status can only be given to places which are not part of the protecting power. Washington D.C., being part of the USA, cannot be a protectorate of the USA

[Lord Sidious]

Washington D.C. does not have protectorate status, it is a federal district. Protectorate status can only be given to places which are not part of the protecting power. Washington D.C., being part of the USA, cannot be a protectorate of the USA

You know whats funny?
The COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is a federal district of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Howzat?

[Cigan Mojia]

I like Ice Cream was my response, because I don't think there's relevance in answering this hypothetical, we would be arguing semantics over "control" of which we have the illusion if not the actuality. One or many may argue this perspective, which is your right and I look forward to a touch of Free Will entering the debate. However, it makes me almost giggle if it were not so sad.... What Constitution do "my fellow Americans" think we have?

( I would think some research into Jordan Maxwell and Michael Tsarion to start could be beneficial.)

I would also ask why we think of our country as separate from the rest of the world, how has that insanity worked out for us?

Miss Darla posts an interesting query in form of a statement that I feel begs to be reformed and asked. Regarding the Federal Gov't and land mass of the states:

"Western States such as Idaho, Montana, Wymoing, and so forth, they reneiged and did not give those lands back. Speaking on behalf of Idaho which only was given back less than 10% of their total land mass and therefore Idaho has hardly any people due to the huge amount of Federal Public Lands and designated Wilderness Areas off limits to the people who live there ~ and this was allowed to stand."

I wonder why we stop at, "He took my ball!" Instead of questioning the almighty "Because I said so" Federal confiscation. Why are these states in control of such a small percentage of their land? Is it the Geography, Resources, *gasp* Oil or something far more nefarious?

Best Wishes to all,

Ciganka

[K626]

I like Ice Cream was my response, because I don't think there's relevance in answering this hypothetical, we would be arguing semantics over "control" of which we have the illusion if not the actuality. One or many may argue this perspective, which is your right and I look forward to a touch of Free Will entering the debate. However, it makes me almost giggle if it were not so sad.... What Constitution do "my fellow Americans" think we have?

( I would think some research into Jordan Maxwell and Michael Tsarion to start could be beneficial.)

I would also ask why we think of our country as separate from the rest of the world, how has that insanity worked out for us?

Miss Darla posts an interesting query in form of a statement that I feel begs to be reformed and asked. Regarding the Federal Gov't and land mass of the states:

"Western States such as Idaho, Montana, Wymoing, and so forth, they reneiged and did not give those lands back. Speaking on behalf of Idaho which only was given back less than 10% of their total land mass and therefore Idaho has hardly any people due to the huge amount of Federal Public Lands and designated Wilderness Areas off limits to the people who live there ~ and this was allowed to stand."

I wonder why we stop at, "He took my ball!" Instead of questioning the almighty "Because I said so" Federal confiscation. Why are these states in control of such a small percentage of their land? Is it the Geography, Resources, *gasp* Oil or something far more nefarious?

Best Wishes to all,

Ciganka

It's what the ice cream choice is for Sir!

Do continue I was enjoying the cut of your gib.

Peace

K

[Darla Ken Pearce]

Miss Darla posts an interesting query.

I wonder why we stop at, "He took my ball!" Instead of questioning the almighty "Because I said so" Federal confiscation. Why are these states in control of such a small percentage of their land? Is it the Geography, Resources, *gasp* Oil or something far more nefarious? Ciganka

Yes, something nefarious, indeed! Had I been alive at the time, I wouldn't have been saying, "He took my ball." Those were very different times. On the other hand, it may have been necessary to negotiate better and not to have been so gullible. Those who signed up for this Gig of the states had to be out of their minds at the time anyway, to believe anything this group of renegade farmers and Englander deemed "outlaws" could say in the first place. Not on my watch, sweetheart! The English have had their mitts in everything American and never gave up the land. We must ask Saint Germain who was there at the time. I have no memory of it. Thanks for this small favor, my friends.

Incidentally, I found records when this issue was brought to the attention of Congress back in the 60's, that land issues were very screwed up and needed final resolution.

Then after a committee was formed and all the evidence gathered ~ drum roll ~ only to be buried deep in the archives of a university in Moscow, Idaho, where I found it with great relish. It was buried in plain sight, as usual. Some things never change. Cheers or not ; ) xoxoxoxox

[K626]

Miss Darla posts an interesting query.

I wonder why we stop at, "He took my ball!" Instead of questioning the almighty "Because I said so" Federal confiscation. Why are these states in control of such a small percentage of their land? Is it the Geography, Resources, *gasp* Oil or something far more nefarious? Ciganka

Yes, something nefarious, indeed! Had I been alive at the time, I wouldn't have been saying, "He took my ball." Those were very different times. On the other hand, it may have been necessary to negotiate better and not to have been so gullible. Those who signed up for this Gig of the states had to be out of their minds at the time anyway, to believe anything this group of renegade farmers and Englander deemed "outlaws" could say in the first place. Not on my watch, sweetheart! The English have had their mitts in everything American and never gave up the land. We must ask Saint Germain who was there at the time. I have no memory of it. Thanks for this small favor, my friends.

Incidentally, I found records when this issue was brought to the attention of Congress back in the 60's, that land issues were very screwed up and needed final resolution.

Then after a committee was formed and all the evidence gathered ~ drum roll ~ only to be buried deep in the archives of a university in Moscow, Idaho, where I found it with great relish. It was buried in plain sight, as usual. Some things never change. Cheers or not ; ) xoxoxoxox

The English hiding behind manners and 'cups of tea' took down most of the planet from a tiny island with a relatively small population. There is a lesson in that for all of us.

Peace

K

[Cigan Mojia]

Miss Darla,
You are an inspiration.
It's refreshing to know there are those who do more than speak, who understand we cannot go quietly into this night, who do their homework and know of that which has been, for without apologies we may demand the Truth.

How can we vanquish enemies of which we know naught? Fighting, waring and destroying is not the way, Einstein spoke of this: "Problems cannot be solved with the same level of intelligence that created them."

Thank you.

[K626]

Apparently the Queen still owns the ground (land) of Manhattan and this was part of some long forgotten deal. Anyone throw light on this?

cheers

K

[Nyce555]

I think if that happened, we would have civil wars over and over again. some politicians would put crazy laws into play and then citizens would either leave the state or become rebels. Then the state getting overcrowded with the refugees would end up fighting with the states that they are leaving from. It would be chaotic.

[Cigan Mojia]

I would refrain from getting too far off the original topic that created this thread, however I would add:

It would seem the whole would be better served by viewing as large of a section of the big picture as they are able to accept.

Every minority, majority, ethnicity, creed, and elitist group will have, have had, or strive diligently to avoid: A stint in the penalty box -or- time on the list of unsavory characters. Based on the majority, or the few I ask you.

Whomsoever may be in service to themselves (IE: those without love for the Natives of Gaia, The Earth and the concepts of Creation) those who find compassion repugnant have led us to hate anything that smacks of difference while they remain indifferent to the play.

How does one counteract this poison?

[K626]

I think if that happened, we would have civil wars over and over again. some politicians would put crazy laws into play and then citizens would either leave the state or become rebels. Then the state getting overcrowded with the refugees would end up fighting with the states that they are leaving from. It would be chaotic.

Often out of chaos new things come.

cheers

K

[K626]

I would refrain from getting too far off the original topic that created this thread, however I would add:

It would seem the whole would be better served by viewing as large of a section of the big picture as they are able to accept.

Every minority, majority, ethnicity, creed, and elitist group will have, have had, or strive diligently to avoid: A stint in the penalty box -or- time on the list of unsavory characters. Based on the majority, or the few I ask you.

Whomsoever may be in service to themselves (IE: those without love for the Natives of Gaia, The Earth and the concepts of Creation) those who find compassion repugnant have led us to hate anything that smacks of difference while they remain indifferent to the play.

How does one counteract this poison?

Well the answer is staggeringly simple my friend.

The age where society survived and thrived in larger and larger visionless groupings with a morass of action and descision making has/is coming to an end.

Expression and a voice will become more important and I dare say at the price of safety.



cheers

K

[K626]

I think if that happened, we would have civil wars over and over again. some politicians would put crazy laws into play and then citizens would either leave the state or become rebels. Then the state getting overcrowded with the refugees would end up fighting with the states that they are leaving from. It would be chaotic.

Been thinking about this the last few days with regard to the budget disagreement and the paralysis of Washington. Are we at the point where Govt money/checks/funding will collapse or fall over under the weight of cuts and naked fianancial confusion?

[blake]

Hello All,

None of us, that I am aware of, are privy to the games that Wasington and TPTB are currently playing. The only thing I know for sure, is that fiat money and central banking is based on fraud, and sold to the uneducated, or corrupt public with smoke and mirrors. I say corrupt public becasue so many people seem to go along with the fraud , as long as they get their slice of the pie no matter how small.

History, as most of you know, clearly shows how all fiat monetary systems fail. The United States has been in finanical death chokes for a while, the end is near and will be abrupt, at least in my opinion. It is also my opinion, that anyone who has not taken the simple steps to provide for their families, at least enough food, water and medicine to see them through the period of unrest that is upon us, will physically suffer needlessly becasue we all have witnessed this upcoming death for the past two decades. Ron Paul has been discussing it since the 1980's.

Youth sometimes never think that they will become middle aged or old. And yet children grow up, the young become middle age, and the middle age become elderly and vulnerable, dependent on the younger generation to do what is right publicly and privately. And so it is with this financially crisis, our Financial system has gone from youth, to middle age, to old age, to being elderly, to being on its death bed.

I don't know what is going to happen. There are too many plays to be made, and too many manipulations happening. What I know is that time has run out. And no matter what is done, the dollar is dead, and this makes everyone very vulnerable unless you personally have prepared to have what you physically need to wait out the chaos that follows the death of a currency.

I salute people who have no fear for their belef in the soul being immortal and enter this next phrase in world history with taking what comes. I happen to like comfort and good food. I take my responsibility for being the safety anchor for my family. So I prepare the best I can, stocking up on my everyday needs as if a winter storm will have us snowed in for a few months.

It doesn't matter whether the American Congress raises the debt ceiling or not, its over.

I noramlly don't go to stores very often. This year it had been probably over six month since I actaully went into to stores and I am shock at the lack of inventory they have compared to what they use to carry. Perhaps for those who shop often, perhaps they haven't noticed, but it has been a shock to me and tells me where things are rapidly going.

The question was," Are we at the point where Govt money/checks/funding will collapse or fall under the weight of cuts and naked financial confusion?" My answer, in my humble opinion is....YES.

Sincerely,
Mr Davis

[Maia Gabrial]

The Constitution says that we can overthrow the government.
Also, a friend told me that there are 21 states that have filed for secession...

[blake]

The Constitution says that we can overthrow the government.
Also, a friend told me that there are 21 states that have filed for secession...

Hello Maia Gabrial,

In my opinion, the American Declaration of Independence is the American Authority for session. It is our first legal document and clearly states that it is an unalienable right of humans to sever the bonds with any government that proves not to be in the best interest of The People. In the Declaration of Independence, a long list of abuses, by the English authorities, are listed for the King of England as the reason for the American colonies severing ties with the English government.

I do beleive, the New Hampshire state constitution actually states that it can secede. However, the American Federal Government doesn't see it that way or the South would have been allowed to secede from the union. The American Civil War was, in my opinion, the beginning of tyranny getting a stronghold in America, by allowing those in power ito ignore the heart of the Declaration of Independence and thereby ignoring the fundamental basics of lAmerican law, unalienable rights.

I have no idea if 21 states have filed for secession. I don't think there is a form for doing so. I would imagine if the people wanted to flick their strength and unalienable rights at the Federal Government, a declaration would be all that is necessary, once the people of that state agreed that is what they wanted. However, to date, no state has seceded. But there is much talk about it, and I for one am in favor of it, since our American Republic died long ago.

Sincerely,

Mr. Davis

[dddanieljjjamesss]

I'm not sure of the logistics, but Massachusetts could really swing either way; sucking on the teat of the federal government or pretty damn reliable on its own.

[ghostrider]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself. if the great state of texas goes, oklahoma will go with texas..

[ghostrider]

america was born from the people who were tired of being crushed by their government. we'll leave and go make our own country/rules . we outta here.

[K626]

texas can legally succeed and is big enough to sustain itself. if the great state of texas goes, oklahoma will go with texas..

It will be a massive moment in the history of America if Texas breaks away and the ripples will be felt all around the world, because the game would then really be on!

cheers

K

[Maia Gabrial]

Just think about how much money the federal govt. will lose if only ONE state secedes....

[Lord Sidious]

Might be time to raise the Bonnie Blue Flag again soon.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2F-drjUwNU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjOIFGrYtaE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbTjbLliL00

[sygh]

As recently as this year, 2011, South Florida has proposed splitting Florida in half. The reasons given: "We'd have Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami. They'd have Orlando, Tampa and Jacksonville. We'd have Donald Trump. They'd have Donald Duck. We'd have the Keys. They'd have the Redneck Riviera. We'd have Big Sugar. They'd have Big Citrus. We'd have the Dolphins and the Hurricanes. They'd have the Gators and the 'Noles. We'd have the Everglades. They'd have Busch Gardens. We'd have casinos. They'd have school prayer. We'd have same-sex marriages. They'd have the defense-of-marriage act.

Many areas in other U.S. states get frustrated over paying a disproportionate amount of taxes, as compared to the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_proposals

The U.S. is divided in several different ways, for as many reasons. To name a few, we have the Census Bureau-designated areas (the census bureau keeps a close eye on the distribution of income), the Standard Federal Regions (which serves as a grid for Homeland Security,), Courts of Appeals Circuits, the Time Zones, and ofcourse, everyone's favorite... The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which divided the country into twelve districts with a central Federal Reserve Bank in each district.

The ten Standard Federal Regions came into being under Richard Nixon. Over the years, there has been speculation that, if the US were to eliminate the 50 States, and break the U.S. up into into smaller, interdependent regions, this would be the map the government would start with.

[Jake]

Here is a breakdown, by state, of how much money the Federal Government dolls out to each state, based on how much money is collected in taxes on behalf of the federal government. The states on the bottom are more self sufficient. These are 2005 numbers, so things may have changed, but Texas gets less money, per dollar collected, than most states do. 94 cents,, meaning that the Federal Gov, MAKES money off of Texas (with taxes). My state, Nazington, gets the least amount from the fed based on tax numbers. (Trust me, they get their money from the government in other ways!) http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

However, Texas has received, by far, the most money in federal aid and relief from disasters. (They have, by far, declared more disasters than any other,,,) http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/texas-run-secessionist-guv-has-received-federal-disaster-relief-more-times-any-state

The people in Texas are quite sure of themselves. I agree with the sentiment about Oklahoma. They will go with Texas. (and everyone can start building casinos...)

[Lord Sidious]

As recently as this year, 2011, South Florida has proposed splitting Florida in half. The reasons given: "We'd have Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami. They'd have Orlando, Tampa and Jacksonville. We'd have Donald Trump. They'd have Donald Duck. We'd have the Keys. They'd have the Redneck Riviera. We'd have Big Sugar. They'd have Big Citrus. We'd have the Dolphins and the Hurricanes. They'd have the Gators and the 'Noles. We'd have the Everglades. They'd have Busch Gardens. We'd have casinos. They'd have school prayer. We'd have same-sex marriages. They'd have the defense-of-marriage act.

Many areas in other U.S. states get frustrated over paying a disproportionate amount of taxes, as compared to the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_proposals

The U.S. is divided in several different ways, for as many reasons. To name a few, we have the Census Bureau-designated areas (the census bureau keeps a close eye on the distribution of income), the Standard Federal Regions (which serves as a grid for Homeland Security,), Courts of Appeals Circuits, the Time Zones, and ofcourse, everyone's favorite... The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which divided the country into twelve districts with a central Federal Reserve Bank in each district.

The ten Standard Federal Regions came into being under Richard Nixon. Over the years, there has been speculation that, if the US were to eliminate the 50 States, and break the U.S. up into into smaller, interdependent regions, this would be the map the government would start with.

That reminds me of a conversation I had back in the 80's with a guy who just returned from america.
He asked me if I knew why america was doing so much better than australia?
I said no, so he told me.
In america they have Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Stevie Wonder.
In australia, we had paul keating, no cash and no bloody wonder! :p

[sygh]

As recently as this year, 2011, South Florida has proposed splitting Florida in half. The reasons given: "We'd have Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach and Miami. They'd have Orlando, Tampa and Jacksonville. We'd have Donald Trump. They'd have Donald Duck. We'd have the Keys. They'd have the Redneck Riviera. We'd have Big Sugar. They'd have Big Citrus. We'd have the Dolphins and the Hurricanes. They'd have the Gators and the 'Noles. We'd have the Everglades. They'd have Busch Gardens. We'd have casinos. They'd have school prayer. We'd have same-sex marriages. They'd have the defense-of-marriage act.

Many areas in other U.S. states get frustrated over paying a disproportionate amount of taxes, as compared to the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_partition_proposals

The U.S. is divided in several different ways, for as many reasons. To name a few, we have the Census Bureau-designated areas (the census bureau keeps a close eye on the distribution of income), the Standard Federal Regions (which serves as a grid for Homeland Security,), Courts of Appeals Circuits, the Time Zones, and ofcourse, everyone's favorite... The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which divided the country into twelve districts with a central Federal Reserve Bank in each district.

The ten Standard Federal Regions came into being under Richard Nixon. Over the years, there has been speculation that, if the US were to eliminate the 50 States, and break the U.S. up into into smaller, interdependent regions, this would be the map the government would start with.

That reminds me of a conversation I had back in the 80's with a guy who just returned from america.
He asked me if I knew why america was doing so much better than america?
I said no, so he told me.
In america they have Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Stevie Wonder.
In australia, we had paul keating, no cash and no bloody wonder! :p

LOL. Yeah, I liked that. But first, I had to read your sentence "He asked me if I knew why america was doing so much better than America?" I was waiting for an answer for that one.;)

Seriously though, if/when the financial and political ****e comes falling down, or, if America's polulation continues to grow, The map of the ten Standard Federal Regions countries/states (whatever) could very well be the way the US breaks up. Homeland Security uses this map, as does FEMA. Barring earth changes...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_Standard_Regions_map.png

[MargueriteBee]

Most are saying, no it can't happened. But about in the future after 2012? Anything can happen!

[Lord Sidious]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Federal_Standard_Regions_map.png

[K626]

Here is a breakdown, by state, of how much money the Federal Government dolls out to each state, based on how much money is collected in taxes on behalf of the federal government. The states on the bottom are more self sufficient. These are 2005 numbers, so things may have changed, but Texas gets less money, per dollar collected, than most states do. 94 cents,, meaning that the Federal Gov, MAKES money off of Texas (with taxes). My state, Nazington, gets the least amount from the fed based on tax numbers. (Trust me, they get their money from the government in other ways!) http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

However, Texas has received, by far, the most money in federal aid and relief from disasters. (They have, by far, declared more disasters than any other,,,) http://motherjones.com/mojo/2009/04/texas-run-secessionist-guv-has-received-federal-disaster-relief-more-times-any-state

The people in Texas are quite sure of themselves. I agree with the sentiment about Oklahoma. They will go with Texas. (and everyone can start building casinos...)

There is also the ripple effect of non-compliance and general public disobedience that will start to show in the other states as people begin to see what is possible. As the blanket of darkness begins to lift.

Peace

K

[Lifebringer]

See ya texas.