US state secession: are differences irreconcilable?

[ozmirage]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
NATIONAL DIVORCE? SECESSION ?
This is a STUNNING victory for the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

The fact that it's being talked about is what seems pertinent to me. From apathy to sitting up and noticing somethin' ain't right. As far as I'm concerned, that's a start. Can we turn it around and save the Republic, or awaken from reality that our government is protecting the rights of predators instead of individual rights and liberties? Stay tuned. The question remains unanswered....

"Talked about" is a smoke screen. And a republic is not synonymous with a republican form. The Peoples Republic of China is a republic but NOT a republican from.
No news outlet ever mentions the REPUBLICAN FORM. Or the endowed rights of the people (Not citizens) that would be at risk from dissolution of the UNION.
IN SHORT, IT'S ALL PROPAGANDA aimed at destroying the UNION.
(P.S. - in 1777, the Articles of Confederation created a PERPETUAL UNION. But no one seems to have read that charter. And, no, it was not replaced by the USCON. Its terms were incorporated, by reference, into the USCON, via Art 6.)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
LOR=#006400]THE REAL REMEDY - 97% OF AMERICANS WITHDRAW CONSENT FROM THE SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY AND RESTORE ENDOWED RIGHTS.[/COLOR]
That's all.
With the government's revenue cut by 97% and its authority to govern reduced to 3%, while all the sovereign people's endowed rights are not taxed, regulated, nor trespassed, no matter who is elected, there's very little mischief they can get into. It will be a national emergency when the president loses his bus pass.

Sure. That would remedy, in theory. A Ghandi-like resistance. But in practice, there would be civil war first.

INCORRECT. Gandhi espoused non-violent OPPOSITION. Withdrawing consent is more akin to debarking from a Pirate Ship and heading for "dry land". Nothing to "fight" about.
A "CIVIL" war is based on parties breaching a "civil" compact (such as one that formed a government). The public servants have a duty to the sovereign people, but not vice versa.

In reality, if a substantial portion withdrew consent, and returned to the REPUBLICAN FORM, the remaining partisans would be the USURERS (bankers, etc) versus the COLLECTIVISTS (socialists / communists).
Frankly, if 97% withdrew consent, the remaining 3% who stayed to serve would not be likely to be of either faction, since there would be no way to "get rich" nor "rule others."
(Those "Founders" were real clever. Unfortunately, once their generation died off, in the 1820s, the new kids decided to emulate European democrazies. Bad move.)

[mijatoca]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by mijatoca (here)

Bill, I don't read all your posts (no offence) , and correct me if my characterization of you is inaccurate, but you seem like you have devolved into a QANON cultist.

Yes, I can correct you. You're absolutely wrong.

I've never once supported (or even been interested in) QAnon. As I posted several times a while back, the QAnon messages changed authorship as many as 5 or 6 times even in the first year as the initiators lost control over the entire thing.

I'm no MAGA hothead. The world would be a better (and safer, fairer, more equitable) place if the entire USA fell to its global knees. The US is no longer the leader of the Free World.

Regarding my personal principles, I posted this here a few days ago. As a thought experiment, I'd defy anyone to try to place me personally on any Left—Right spectrum. I'm:

• pro-environment
• anti-imperialism
• anti-war (yes, really; but war is sometimes necessary as a last resort when the weak and corrupt global legal system fails)
• anti-greed
• pro-Christian (although I'm not a Christian myself; I'm more of a Buddhist)
• anti-capitalism
• pro-family
• pro-education
• pro-tradition
• pro-national culture
• pro-health sovereignty
• anti-recreational drugs
• pro-equality of opportunity
• anti-personal surveillance
• anti-big business
• anti-big pharma
• anti-big banking
• anti-big agro
• anti-globalisation
• anti-hunting for sport
• anti-censorship... etc etc etc.

Posted by mijatoca (here)

1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

The other country attracts sensibility or at least a discussion based on facts.

That's why some people are discussing a 'National Divorce'. You have perfectly represented why no meaningful dialog is possible.

I apologize Bill for my broad characterization of you. I just get triggered when I read some of of your right leaning posts and others here that want to own the libs by dismissing them as commies. It's so lame and lazy. I don't like our Prime Minister JT. Entitled little dick. His Dad I did like. Took no **** and drove the bus his way. Politicians and politics are just a game. I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by mijatoca (here)
...your right leaning posts...

I'm not "right leaning".

Why do you think I am? That's a serious question. That's such a superficial label.

• I abhor multinational corporations and their anti-human values.
• I'm critical of capitalism in general.
• I care very deeply about the environment. (We're in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction right now.)
• I abhor hunting for sport. (I'm almost incapable of killing a fly.)
• I abhor the deep inequalities that are prevalent in the world. (I've spent time in Africa and India, and I now live in Ecuador. I know what real poverty is.)
• I've never owned a gun.
• I'm very much anti-war, unless it's genuinely justified, which it can sometimes be. (Every military intervention by the US in recent decades has been a psychopathic, destructive, colonialist, neocon adventure).

Way too many people are trapped in the very simplistic Left-Right dichotomy, which in my strong opinion is nearly meaningless.

We have to start thinking about this in a way that recognizes the true complexity of the various permutations of political views. I'm really a Libertarian, in the sense that the term was understood quite a few years ago. But very few political parties anywhere in the world now represent true Libertarianism.

Do see this interesting thread:

• The "Right-Left" dichotomy: false, simplistic, & manipulative.

[ozmirage]

It's a common mistake to assume banks and corporations are capitalism. They call themselves "capitalists" after all.
But that's not correct.
Capitalism, as defined, is the private ownership of the means of production - starting with land, resources, your labor and that which you produce.
HOWEVER, the so-called capitalists are creatures of government, allowed to exist and engage in abominations (usury) and have privileges (limited liability) which are inequitable and unjust.
Stockholders are immune from prosecution for the evils done by their corporations in the pursuit of gain.
In fact, pseudo capitalists prey upon real capitalism, the owners of private property.

A farmer who owns his farm is enjoying capitalism.
A farmer in debt to a bank ("capitalist") is a victim.

[T Smith]

Posted by ozmirage (here)
INCORRECT. Gandhi espoused non-violent OPPOSITION. Withdrawing consent is more akin to debarking from a Pirate Ship and heading for "dry land". Nothing to "fight" about.

Yes, but the mere fact of withdrawing consent will lead to violence first. I don't see how you "skip" over that stage. We are seeing the beginning of that now, with protestors (those who are basically exercising a form of non-consent) being held in jail, without charge. We see it with the conviction of Douglas Mackey, who is facing 10 years prison time for exercising harmless free speech, a so-called inalienable right. These are actions of non-consent, for all intents and purposes, or at least the beginning stages of non-consent. And imprisonment is an act of violence in itself. So violence is already being committed.

If/when people begin to withdraw consent in droves, either by refusing to pay taxes, refusing to observe government mandates, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of government altogether--or whatever have you--i.e, the proverbial "jumping from the pirate ship" and swimming for dry land--it will only result in blood-thirsty pirates on deck arming themselves to the teeth with harpoons, taking aim and fire at whoever and whatever is swimming to shore. They will justify their violence via self-righteous propaganda, indoctrination, demonization, and brianwashing, and by inducing on the masses a state of mass hysteria, irrational fear, and mass formation.

But, sure. In theory, if everybody jumped ship all at once and declared themselves sovereign via the tenants of common law, they couldn't get us all, but it just doesn't work that way. The more non-compliant the people become the more vicious and violent they will respond in direct proportion to the increasing divergence. At some point, after it's obvious to all violence is being waged against the people by the so-called public servants who are supposed to be serving them, people will start to fight back. Violence is inevitable.

I'm not calling for it; I'm just describing human nature.

[mijatoca]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by mijatoca (here)
...your right leaning posts...

I'm not "right leaning".

Why do you think I am? That's a serious question. That's such a superficial label.

• I abhor multinational corporations and their anti-human values.
• I'm critical of capitalism in general.
• I care very deeply about the environment. (We're in the middle of the sixth great mass extinction right now.)
• I abhor hunting for sport. (I'm almost incapable of killing a fly.)
• I abhor the deep inequalities that are prevalent in the world. (I've spent time in Africa and India, and I now live in Ecuador. I know what real poverty is.)
• I've never owned a gun.
• I'm very much anti-war, unless it's genuinely justified, which it can sometimes be. (Every military intervention by the US in recent decades has been a psychopathic, destructive, colonialist, neocon adventure).

Way too many people are trapped in the very simplistic Left-Right dichotomy, which in my strong opinion is nearly meaningless.

We have to start thinking about this in a way that recognizes the true complexity of the various permutations of political views. I'm really a Libertarian, in the sense that the term was understood quite a few years ago. But very few political parties anywhere in the world now represent true Libertarianism.

Do see this interesting thread:

• The "Right-Left" dichotomy: false, simplistic, & manipulative.

To answer your question why I think you are right leaning.
The first time was when you cited something from Project Veritas.
The second time was when you predicted Trump would win the 2020 election.
The third time was this thread and MTG. She just irritates me so much!
Maybe that's petty on my part. Guilty as charged. You just seem to take GOP talking points to heart.

Sincerely, Mike

[DNA]

Posted by mijatoca (here)
Hi DNA. I don't watch any news outlet. I'd rather stick a fork in my leg than listen to Wolf Blitzer.
When you write "I wish we could help you", who do you mean "we"? I must assume you feel comfortable here as a collective. I emphasize "collective", you know, like a hive mind? Why even discuss anything?

Artificial hives have been created all over the earth for the minds of men.
Some people see through that bu11**** and I believe that is what Avalon is.
An organic hive of folks who refused the artificial hives of the beekeepers.
You have not left your artificial hive.
MGT seems crazy to you.
That's because you don't agree that the current attack on the Western cultures of the world is multipronged.
Attacking what it is to be a family.
What it is to be a traditional man or woman.
What it is to be a child joyously ignorant of sex of the traditional kind much less that of the fringe.
This multipronged attack on our children includes men dressed in the most sexualizing of women's clothing then immatating sex dancing designed to stimulate sexual thoughts in men when performed by women.

Drag queen story hour has been initiated in libraries, schools and other instutitions. This is a concerted effort to sexualize children and create gender dysphoria.

The sexualizing is what MGT is talking about.
Predator pedophiles dressed in the worst clothes possible to represent womanhood.

Technically the gender dysphoria being supposedly created is the worst of what is going on.
Carving young people up via prebuscent drugs and surgery.

In all honesty I don't t really think you care about any of this information.

I think you're here to troll.
You remind me of Fred/Gracy.

[T Smith]

Posted by mijatoca (here)
I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

This is a fascinating admission. Basically, embracing those who are telling you the lies you want to hear, knowing they're lies. That's typically the Devil's greatest trick, allegorically speaking. But most of the time those who fall victim to this type of cajolery don't know they're being lied to....

[mijatoca]

Posted by DNA (here)

Posted by mijatoca (here)
Hi DNA. I don't watch any news outlet. I'd rather stick a fork in my leg than listen to Wolf Blitzer.
When you write "I wish we could help you", who do you mean "we"? I must assume you feel comfortable here as a collective. I emphasize "collective", you know, like a hive mind? Why even discuss anything?

Artificial hives have been created all over the earth for the minds of men.
Some people see through that bu11**** and I believe that is what Avalon is.
An organic hive of folks who refused the artificial hives of the beekeepers.
You have not left your artificial hive.
MGT seems crazy to you.
That's because you don't agree that the current attack on the Western cultures of the world is multipronged.
Attacking what it is to be a family.
What it is to be a traditional man or woman.
What it is to be a child joyously ignorant of sex of the traditional kind much less that of the fringe.
This multipronged attack on our children includes men dressed in the most sexualizing of women's clothing then immatating sex dancing designed to stimulate sexual thoughts in men when performed by women.

Drag queen story hour has been initiated in libraries, schools and other instutitions. This is a concerted effort to sexualize children and create gender dysphoria.

The sexualizing is what MGT is talking about.
Predator pedophiles dressed in the worst clothes possible to represent womanhood.

Technically the gender dysphoria being supposedly created is the worst of what is going on.
Carving young people up via prebuscent drugs and surgery.

In all honesty I don't t really think you care about any of this information.

I think you're here to troll.
You remind me of Fred/Gracy.

With all due respect DNA, reading that last post, you seem to have some issues. I'll say no more.

[mijatoca]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by mijatoca (here)
I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

This is a fascinating admission. Basically, embracing those who are telling you the lies you want to hear, knowing they're lies. That's typically the Devil's greatest trick, allegorically speaking. But most of the time those who fall victim to this type of cajolery don't know they're being lied to....

I's not fascinating to me. Quite simple actually you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOP

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by mijatoca (here)

With all due respect DNA, reading that last post, you seem to have some issues. I'll say no more.

Mike, in a very brief one-sentence summary, DNA's post was largely about the US Democrat-promoted corruption of sexuality and the erosion of family values.

1. What are your own views about this?
2. Do you think that this issue properly lies somewhere in the "Left-Right spectrum" of politics?

[mijatoca]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by mijatoca (here)

With all due respect DNA, reading that last post, you seem to have some issues. I'll say no more.

Mike, in a very brief one-sentence summary, DNA's post was largely about the US Democrat-promoted corruption of sexuality and the erosion of family values.

1. What are your own views about this?
2. Do you think that this issue properly lies somewhere in the "Left-Right spectrum" of politics?

Very good question Bill. Sorry if I have to start with a question.
The taliking points about the "corruption of sexuality" is a relatively new phenonium. Right or wrong, which party brings this up the most?
You think LGBT is something that just erupted on this planet? Been here a while. JUST NEVER AKNOWLEGED to the point it is now. What difference does it make to your life? WTF does it matter in the grand scheme. How many lives are lost to the effects of this topic? I don't know, but I do know that the leading causes of death amongst children in the US is gun violence. Sorry Bill, can you cite me a thread you opened about that?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by mijatoca (here)
you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOP

I have to say, from those words it doesn't actually look like it.

You seem easily triggered, seem confused about what is right and wrong, seem to have many stereotypical views, seem to have anger issues (do you? ), and it's a little hard to see who and what you feel compassion for.

If you think that those Avalon members (self included!), who you feel are "right-leaning", somehow lack compassion, you're completely mistaken. As I mentioned earlier, I've spent quite a bit of time in Africa and India and I know what poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity all are.

It may be worth considering people on an individual basis regarding what their values and principles are, rather than pigeonholing them (and 350 million North Americans!) into two simplistically labeled groups.

But regarding the question posed on this thread, I confess to knowing little about MTG. I'm not an American! But whatever you think of her personally, her proposition seems to me to be valid and worth a forum discussion.

And as several have pointed out (maybe the subtle irony was missed!!) the way this very thread is becoming polarized — at your instigation, not anyone else's — seems to add justification to the idea of truly irreconcilable differences between people with different views.

The contempt and ridicule started with your own words here: (I'm not a Christian in the sense that you seem to regard the "right-leaning", or else I'd surely have been offended)

1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

If this was a debating competition, I'd make the argument to the audience that you have totally proven the point that you were claiming to oppose.

[mijatoca]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by mijatoca (here)
you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOP

I have to say, from those words it doesn't actually look like it.

You seem easily triggered, seem confused about what is right and wrong, seem to have many stereotypical views, seem to have anger issues (do you? ), and it's a little hard to see who and what you feel compassion for.

If you think that those Avalon members (self included!), who you feel are "right-leaning", somehow lack compassion, you're completely mistaken. As I mentioned earlier, I've spent quite a bit of time in Africa and India and I know what poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunity all are.

It may be worth considering people on an individual basis regarding what their values and principles are, rather than pigeonholing them (and 350 million North Americans!) into two simplistically labeled groups.

But regarding the question posed on this thread, I confess to knowing little about MTG. I'm not an American! But whatever you think of her personally, her proposition seems to me to be valid and worth a forum discussion.

And as several have pointed out (maybe the subtle irony was missed!!) the way this very thread is becoming polarized — at your instigation, not anyone else's — seems to add justification to the idea of truly irreconcilable differences between people with different views.

The contempt and ridicule started with your own words here: (I'm not a Christian in the sense that you seem to regard the "right-leaning", or else I'd surely have been offended)

1 country will be thrilled of guns in public like an episode of Gunsmoke, The Christian Taliban rules, Federal dollars become non existant anymore for those states that took more than contributed, talent exits because this bs isn't what they bargained for. Looks a lot more like (in my opinion) the Middle East now.

If this was a debating competition, I'd make the argument to the audience that you have totally proven the point that you were claiming to oppose.

Ok, I think I've lost my purpose here. I'll exit this thread. All the best to you Bill! (and your dog (I love dogs. Maybe agree on that))

[thepainterdoug]

mijotoca said / I apologize Politicians and politics are just a game. I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.gize Bill for my broad characterization of you. I just get triggered when I read some of of your right leaning posts and others here that want to own the libs by dismissing them as commies. It's so lame and lazy. I don't like our Prime Minister JT. Entitled little dick. His Dad I did like. Took no **** and drove the bus his way.


M/ I dont see myself as a right winger although Im sure you have assessed me as one. I grew up as a teen in the late 60ies and always voted DEM.
I have never to this day voted for a republican. I abstained my vote during the 2016 election, but in reflection, thrilled to see Trump, who I never cared about one way or another, win. And his record of no war, easing tensions with Rocket man and Putin , energy independence and a controlled border spoke volumes to me.
Look at Glen Greenwald and Matt Taibi. Matt was the editor of Rolling Stone magazine, the hippie mag I used to read. Matt today in interest of sanity has moved away from this insane radical left, as Greenwald and others have. So they, along with myself look like right wing, yet I am a liberal at heart

A real liberal. I have deep empathy for those who are less fortunate, but giving things away and trying to make everyone and everything even and equal, is a lie.
I am part of P Avalon for almost 10 years. I would never have thought of this site as a meeting place for so called right wing conservative people.
I just think things have so radically changed on the left, and smart people not bound by party or titles, have read the play and adjusted.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by mijatoca (here)

Ok, I think I've lost my purpose here. I'll exit this thread. All the best you Bill! (and your dog (I love dogs. Maybe agree on that))

Thanks for your very kind thought, which I know was sincere.

And I'll embarrass you by thanking you publicly for your very generous $$ donation to Avalon a couple of hours ago, which was equally sincerely appreciated. That was extremely kind of you to have done that.

[T Smith]

Posted by mijatoca (here)

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by mijatoca (here)
I lean towards the ones that at least lie that they have empathy for the less fortunate among us. That want to move forward with ideas. I don't get that vibe from the right. But that's just me.

This is a fascinating admission. Basically, embracing those who are telling you the lies you want to hear, knowing they're lies. That's typically the Devil's greatest trick, allegorically speaking. But most of the time those who fall victim to this type of cajolery don't know they're being lied to....

I's not fascinating to me. Quite simple actually you pompous ass. I embrace compassion. Period. FULL STOP

My apologies, Mijatoca, if I offended you. I didn't intend it that way. You're entitled to your views; I'm just honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around it and understanding it. That's on me...

Carry on,

Kind Regards,

T Smith

[ozmirage]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by ozmirage (here)
INCORRECT. Gandhi espoused non-violent OPPOSITION. Withdrawing consent is more akin to debarking from a Pirate Ship and heading for "dry land". Nothing to "fight" about.

Yes, but the mere fact of withdrawing consent will lead to violence first. I don't see how you "skip" over that stage. We are seeing the beginning of that now, with protestors (those who are basically exercising a form of non-consent) being held in jail, without charge. We see it with the conviction of Douglas Mackey, who is facing 10 years prison time for exercising harmless free speech, a so-called inalienable right. These are actions of non-consent, for all intents and purposes, or at least the beginning stages of non-consent. And imprisonment is an act of violence in itself. So violence is already being committed.

If/when people begin to withdraw consent in droves, either by refusing to pay taxes, refusing to observe government mandates, refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of government altogether--or whatever have you--i.e, the proverbial "jumping from the pirate ship" and swimming for dry land--it will only result in blood-thirsty pirates on deck arming themselves to the teeth with harpoons, taking aim and fire at whoever and whatever is swimming to shore. They will justify their violence via self-righteous propaganda, indoctrination, demonization, and brianwashing, and by inducing on the masses a state of mass hysteria, irrational fear, and mass formation.

But, sure. In theory, if everybody jumped ship all at once and declared themselves sovereign via the tenants of common law, they couldn't get us all, but it just doesn't work that way. The more non-compliant the people become the more vicious and violent they will respond in direct proportion to the increasing divergence. At some point, after it's obvious to all violence is being waged against the people by the so-called public servants who are supposed to be serving them, people will start to fight back. Violence is inevitable.

I'm not calling for it; I'm just describing human nature.

If you could show some evidence in support of your conclusions, I might be persuaded.

I realize that 99.99999% of Americans presume they're CITIZENS and "Must" sign up with socialist insecurity, so dealing with that unknown is daunting... and that's the exact reaction that the Ministry of Propaganda wants - FEAR.

BUT if you ask the government DIRECTLY, most cases, they'll answer truthfully.
And thus there is NO reason to presume that recriminations would follow. In fact, the CONgress was more afraid of the people, back in 1965, when they changed the punishment for counterfeiting from death to just incarceration... Because they enacted counterfeiting in the Coinage Act of 1965. Yup. They "follow" the CONstitution. NOT!
- - -

“The Social Security Act does not require an individual to have a Social Security Number (SSN) to live and work within the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one...”
- - - The Social Security Administration

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/ScottSSNLetter.pdf
Get your own personalized letter from the SocSecAdmin . . .

Read the law for yourself . . .
SOCIAL SECURITY ACT OF 1935 FULL TEXT
https://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/Down...%20Vol%201.pdf

- - -
If you can find ANY aspect of withdrawing consent from socialism that incurs a violent reaction, please point it out.
BUT do not lump in any case where someone who WAS a CONSENTING CITIZEN / SUBJECT / SERF, was slapped down for failure to obey.
- - -
Part of the reluctance is the indoctrination that America is a DEMOCRACY, where a majority can override (or persecute) a minority.
In THAT case, YES, any minority that doesn't cooperate will be [censored].

WHICH is why I repeatedly stress that one must shift back to the REPUBLICAN FORM - which is guaranteed by the USCON, as well as stated in EVERY state constitution.
You can't have one foot in their democrazy and one foot in the republican form.
The bulk of "New Paytriots" are misled by the propaganda ministry to think they can be "sovereign citizens" (an oxymoron).
Either you're a sovereign (not participating in the democracy) or you're a subject (participating in the democracy).

Who says Americans are SOVEREIGN?
The supreme Court... and the law.

GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly ...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695

" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or NATURAL RIGHTS, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...

The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative.
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

It will be admitted on all hands that with the exception of the powers granted to the states and the federal government, through the Constitutions, the people of the several states are unconditionally sovereign within their respective states.
Ohio L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Debolt 16 How. 416, 14 L.Ed. 997

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts.
[Yick Wo vs Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]

The USCON also conforms to this. People have rights and powers (Amendments 9 & 10).
Citizens only have privileges and immunities. (technically, "civil rights" and "political rights" are actually privileges, aka "civil liberties" and "political liberties.")

Who says Citizens are not sovereigns?
Would you believe George Washington - - -

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
{Inside joke - there is only ONE nation on Earth with a republican form, where the people are sovereigns, and the government is their servant.}

Title 10 USC Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of ALL able-bodied MALES at least 17 years of age and, ... under 45 years of age who are ... CITIZENS of the United States

ONLY citizens are obligated to train, fight, and die on command. All other Americans can volunteer.

SO, if you're a consenting subject, YES, you can be prosecuted for failure to obey or perform the obligations that come with mandatory civic duties.
BUT
Try and find ONE LAW that abrogates, trespasses or impairs any endowed right of the sovereign people.

(Trick question - the law already has "trap doors" that open if any law can accidentally violate the rights of the sovereign people.)

Still unconvinced?
(Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922):

“The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have BEEN VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v. Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944, 945-46 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1922)

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1

So withdrawing consent to restore all those inherent / sacred / endowed rights is not an "act of war" nor violation of some law or grounds for recriminations. Frankly, it reverses the government's treatment of you. Instead of your master, from whom you must get permissions (licenses) and pay tribute, it becomes your faithful servant, delegated power to secure your endowment.

Cowering in fear of restoring your birthright is so tragic, but evidence of the success of the world's greatest propaganda ministry.

[ozmirage]

Do not believe me - ask THEM.
Ask them if they have the power to deny natural and personal liberty - don't ask about civil or political liberty - they can deny those privileges.
Ask them if they have the power to tax private property - don't ask if they can tax real estate - they do have the power to tax estate.
Ask them what the consequences for trespass by a public servant are.
Look up the laws, yourself.
....
And one may wonder what Mr. Bierce was referring to in this:
.................................................................
ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.
- - - - “The Devil’s Dictionary” (1906), by Ambrose Bierce
.................................................................


“The Devil’s Dictionary”, by Ambrose Bierce, was a collection of humorous definitions, originally published in a weekly paper starting in 1881.

[ozmirage]

WHO would prefer that Americans do not restore their endowed / inherent / sacred rights to LIFE (and thus any and all means to support and defend that life), LIBERTY (natural and personal), ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OF PRIVATE PROPERTY (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission or payment to another), INHERENT POWERS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES.
- - -

WHO would prefer that Americans remain consenting subjects / citizens / bankrupts / socialist serfs?
- - -

WHO would prefer that Americans remain "status criminals" excepted from all "constitutional" protections?
- - -
Probably the same people who want to sever the UNION, and make it easier to "harvest" the sheeple.

To be frank, EVERY other nation on Earth would love to see America's republican form of government eradicated.
Correction - every other national government (and the people who control them) would love to see America's republican form of government eradicated.
WHY?
SIMPLE - if Americans restored their status, regained prosperity, and became an example of what can be accomplished, it would inspire the world to [.... the rest is censored by order of the Ministry of Truth and Proper Propaganda, M.T.P.P.]