It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We are coming fourth

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Hello all..
I am going to let you in on a movement that is 2 million strong so far.. We are creating a new republic indipendent from the U.S and Canada. Its called Republic of Cascadia. I am quite serious, Check out our web site here at zapatopi.net... We are half way there to our goal, and we are not going to go astray, in fact.. we are just waiting for another event to happen, then we are coming forth with this plan. I could explain more, but the web site is really the fastest and best explination. Really check it out, this is quite the serious movement we are more than half way there!!




posted on May, 27 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
The last time a part of the US tried to leave the union, it didn't go very well for them. There's a ton of info on that site, and it's late...Could you provide a link which has what your plan for doing this would be?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Is this for real or just another american windup joke?



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Are you an able-bodied Sasquatch aged 10 to 150 who loves his or her country? If so, The Republic of Cascadia needs YOU to enlist in the Sasquatch Militia and defend our homeland against our many enemies, including such nefarious evildoers as:

Canadians
Southern Californians
Geoduck & Tree Octopus Poachers
Paraterrestrials
Americans
International Organized Crime Syndicates
Nosey Cryptozoologists.

From the site. It looks like a joke, although on another note if a state had a referendum to leave the Federal Government they could do although the chances of it happening are rare.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   
and when you do decide to Leave the US as a state how would you go about this? is the governer, senators, and representitives behind this? if you have no memebers of government behind you then all you really have is a joke. and i highly doubt that you have any since their enemy's are americans. and when the US says no, then what are you going to do? mass and army? HA one marine corps platoon would destroy your entire militia like it was never there. IF you have such a problem with America or Canada then MOVE. goto russia and see how much you like it there....goto Mexico and see how wounderful it is, goto CUBA and see how well you live in those country's. Sure beats being thankful for what you have right?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
This is clearly a joke. Down at the bottom there are links for the Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs and "save the tree octopuses".

[edit on 20-10-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 08:54 PM
link   
I'm not so sure it's a joke. I've been hearing for a while how the Pacific NW wants to secede...Cascadia, I think, is named after the Cascade Mountains in that region.

I've also heard that Arizona was talking about seceding in the event of martial law being declared.



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
I'm not so sure it's a joke. I've been hearing for a while how the Pacific NW wants to secede...
If anyone was going to secede right now, it would be the North West. Due to geography, it is possible. Do to ability, it is not. I have lived all over the nation, and the NW is so different than the rest of the nation (with some pockets of exception) that I would say this would not surprise me. Of course, you could count on Alaska jumping in, not that they would be much, help except oil wise.

Anyone who grew up in the NW knows that this no joke.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
2 million strong, huh?

Half way there, huh?

When there is 4 million, you all have my permission to leave. But, you can't take the land with you.

I don't care where 4 million intolerant souls go when they divorce themselves from our reality. But, our reality will still have about 250 million Americans to your 4 million neighbor haters.

Check out the numbers, and get back to me. I'm interested in how it works out.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
When there is 4 million, you all have my permission to leave. But, you can't take the land with you.


If those states were to decide they wanted to leave, why would you not want them to?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
When there is 4 million, you all have my permission to leave. But, you can't take the land with you.
And who are you who wields such authority?


I don't care where 4 million intolerant souls go when they divorce themselves from our reality.
Who is intolerant?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


These words remain golden. Just as the colonists were tired of being governed by King George thousands of miles away in a different culture, so too are those of the West tired of being governed by King George (and the rest of the feds. as well, before his time) that live in and serve a different culture.

It says you are stationed in Vegas, so I assume you are an airman or related to one. You, then, should take the time to learn the ideals our nation was founded on and compare those ideals to the state of our nation today. You should know what you are fighting for, and decide which you love more, you country and her constitution, or the government that controls her.


Check out the numbers, and get back to me. I'm interested in how it works out.
How many insurgents are in Iraq? They have proven what a little insurgency can do. Think there are even one million of them?

And if you want to talk numbers, if (as polls suggest) not even half of active duty soldiers would fire on Americans, just how many civilians do you think will take up arms? Also remember those 2 million are committed to a fight. Of those 300,000,000 or so others, look at how many are children, elderly, lame, obese, un-willing to fight or just flat out weak.

I see your numbers thinning.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
There is a SUMMARY of my thoughts in one sentence at the bottom.


Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
When there is 4 million, you all have my permission to leave. But, you can't take the land with you.
And who are you who wields such authority?


I hold certain truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that was endowed unto me by my Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these Rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So, to answer your question: The overwhelming majority, the authors of the above statement, we the people, and my Creator is who endowed me with the authority to excercise and to wield the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So, I (since the rights were reserved) I think you have the right to leave America if you wish, and I take no offense whatsoever to you excersizing your rights. Therefore our mutual beliefs and understanding create feelings of permissiveness and tolerance and understanding for your point of view, and it is my reverence for life that tells me I can only be permissive towards your will. Therefore you have my permission to leave. As for the part that says you can't take the land with you, I believe the land your on does abide by laws that were made by the government that was chosen by the people to represent them. I don't forsee America permitting you to take what we and our ancenstors fought and died for in order for you to have such a place to grow and to form such ideals. It is not I who will not let you take the land when you leave, but essentially the Federal, State, and local authorities who will not permit it. How do I know this? History.



I don't care where 4 million intolerant souls go when they divorce themselves from our reality.
Who is intolerant?


Umm, the people who want to jump ship and take part of our ship with them? Its our ship, too. And, I think it demonstrates at the very least a certain amount of intolerance on the part of say 2 people to think they deserve to take a fifth of the ship from the other 248 passengers on the boat. (your 2,000,000 verses Americas 250,000,000)


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."


What does this mean to you? Is this how you justify a new governement that divides the whole as being one that will provide us (the people)a less destructive governmental entity which does not infringe upon our (the people) unalienable rights, the same rights we believe you have? Can you prove to me that the preposal you support will support a means to your end that are representative of actions and behaviors that will offer the whole of us the rights we already have?



These words remain golden. Just as the colonists were tired of being governed by King George thousands of miles away in a different culture, so too are those of the West tired of being governed by King George (and the rest of the feds. as well, before his time) that live in and serve a different culture.


What gives you the authority to speak for the population of the North West and their states? The people who reside there? Last time I looked, they are being spoken for by who they chose. They have picked their representation, and it was not you. So, who gives you the authority to speak for . .. .. .. . sorry, what states do you represent and speak for again?


It says you are stationed in Vegas, so I assume you are an airman or related to one. You, then, should take the time to learn the ideals our nation was founded on and compare those ideals to the state of our nation today. You should know what you are fighting for, and decide which you love more, you country and her constitution, or the government that controls her.


We have different views on how to best serve. I'm certain that you have specific experiences from your life that I do not, just as I'm certain that I have had specific experiences that are foreign to you. Here we are in agreement, but the solutions are not. I'm not choosing between loving the country and constitution more than the government. I'm choosing to fight for all three and fight against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, our strongest enemy (in my opinion) are those who are trying to use our government as a tool and an extension of their own will for the means of personal gain. Where you see the only option is turning your back on us and leaving, I see strength in numbers who can achive the same effects of their goals by uniting to not let corporate america usurp our voices by controlling those we appoint over us. The only way we can ensure that our intentions are not bought and paid for by others is not to let our fear and hate rule us and our lives. Let's face it. It is the overwhelming majority of Americans who put a man back in the white house who responded to an event where 19 people from Saudi and Egypt toppled two building by toppling two countries. An eye for an eye .. .. .

Don't leave us when we need you most. Cuttin and runnin is usually what the weak do. The strong will face their problems.



Check out the numbers, and get back to me. I'm interested in how it works out.
How many insurgents are in Iraq? They have proven what a little insurgency can do. Think there are even one million of them?

And if you want to talk numbers, if (as polls suggest) not even half of active duty soldiers would fire on Americans, just how many civilians do you think will take up arms? Also remember those 2 million are committed to a fight. Of those 300,000,000 or so others, look at how many are children, elderly, lame, obese, un-willing to fight or just flat out weak.

I see your numbers thinning.


I see you see my numbers are already seperated from your numbers. I see you do not think of us as worthy enough to be with you and your numbers. I see you, and have seen where you and your type have led yourselves and others.

friend, it is presumptious to assume the decisions made are some how not addressing the accumilated knowledge, and that the actions and behaviors of our government are based upon information that is somehow inferior and less complete than the information and knowledge you posses.

Peace.

SUMMARY:

I'll be on the side of the 300,000,000 children, elderly, lame, obese, and those who are perceived as un-willing to fight or just flat out weak, rather than picking the side of 2,000,000 people who choose to leave them behind, or fight against them.




[edit on 1-12-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:27 AM
link   
ET, you didn't answer my question. If those states were to decide they wanted to leave, why should they not be allowed?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Whenever you're naughty, it makes baby Santa cry


Dude, thats just evil.




Esoteric Teacher, whether by design or not, your post would be difficult to reply to. You make so many points at one time and ramble on to the point that it is not worth my time to reply to everything you said. I will, however, let you know that I would not at this time support a full secession of my beloved Oregon as you seem to think. You would do well to consider that not everyone who supports an idea (e.g. the right of a people to choose their way of living) is necessarily a part of that movement.

BTW, the idea you put forth that we choose our representation and therefore are well represented is false. We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. A democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. We have a bill of rights to protect us from those in distant regions from deciding for us what rights we will be allowed to keep. Once that bill of rights was breached, the offended parties were/are free to walk away from it. How many representatives are there From Oregon and Washington? Are they able to make changes to best suit the millions in the NW when faced with the numbers of representatives from other, very different regions? Of course they are not, which makes the constitution and the bill of rights so important. Are you aware that many states refused to join the Union until the 2nd was added?

If everyone in your building voted to raise your rent by $100 per month even though your lease said they couldn’t do that for several months, you would, at a minimum, be able to walk away from your contract (lease.) Why is this concept so hard for some to understand? The states had a contract that certain laws would never be passed, never ever ever no matter what. Well those laws were passed, the contract was broken, and all are now free to go.


The moment unconstitutional laws were passed, especially on the federal level, the individual states were no longer bound to remain a part of the Union.





[edit on 2-12-2005 by cavscout]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Didn't the 2004 US Census estimate around 298 million Americans (not including illegals and visitorrs). Just thought the numbers were a little off.


Edit: Oops, it seems cavscout already knew it was 300 million and not 250. ok, well. sorry for the waste of time, heh.

[edit on 2/12/2005 by FallenOne]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
The moment unconstitutional laws were passed, especially on the federal level, the individual states were no longer bound to remain a part of the Union.


The right to secede was implicit until the civil war. Prior to that, there were significant northern and western secessionist movements as well. Even after the Southern states declared there independence, the war did not immediately begin. Lincoln recognized they did indeed have such a legal right, and began to goad the south into firing the first shot so that a war could be justified. If not for Ft. Sumter, the secession might very well have been permanent.

Of course, what matters is ability, not theoretical rights. A modern secession movement could only have a chance under two scenarios I think.

The first scenario is if the US was near bankruptcy and already engaged in an all consuming war. The modest arms of most states might be enough at that point to make secession stick.

The second scenario would be a widespread secession movement involving a supermajority of states, such that a Constitutional convention could be called to ratify a new Amendment nullifying the federal government and distributing federal property somehow. This approach would be unquestionably Constitutional and legal, and I doubt the military would comply with any orders for a second civil war under such a scenario.

This post is merely observation. I'm not advocating anything with it.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
ET, you didn't answer my question. If those states were to decide they wanted to leave, why should they not be allowed?


I did not address the question because I was 100% certain you are smart enough to figure out the best reasons why such an effort would not be a viable solution.

But a few good reasons I could think of:

Let's say the scenario is: The states of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon want to leave the union.

1) They all have financial deficits, just as the Federal Government does. They also have trillions of dollars worth of Federal resources within their respective boundries. So, since they can not afford to relocate Federal resources, should the remaining tax payers in the union flip the bill?

2) They also have "National Parks" within their borders, and they are the Union's "National Parks", not the state's parks. So, they are our parks, and it has been the union's tax payers who have been paying for their maintenance and such, not soley the tax payers of the respective states.

3) This may be falling into the category of Federal resources on their lands, but the Federal government owns a lot of the land they say they want to take when they leave the union. Not just national parks and federal reserves, but the Indian Reservations, military installations, and land owned and operated by the Federal Government. My point is: What percentage of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho has land that is not theirs, and if they were to leave the union, would they forfeit the use of (approximate guess) 17% of what they think is theirs?

4) How do you settle having to reinburse their Social Security immediatley and still be able to pay those who are currently collecting? It would not be feasable.


To summarize, I believe their are so many variables, and so many worldwide who have both the power and the personal incentives to keep America together. It would just be futile. That is what I think, anyways.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
1) They all have financial deficits...,
2) They also have "National Parks"...
4) How do you settle having to reinburse their Social Security...


These are logistical issues, not a fundamental objection. Suppose all this could be worked out somehow, would you still object then?



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
1) They all have financial deficits...,
2) They also have "National Parks"...
4) How do you settle having to reinburse their Social Security...


These are logistical issues, not a fundamental objection. Suppose all this could be worked out somehow, would you still object then?


It is not my objections that would hinder them from leaving the union, it is the objections of the social order I try to evaluate, and how that social order would justify their actions and behaviors to oppose such a party forming with the intent of leaving the union. Ingredients for a bad situation, not necessarily a good one.



posted on Dec, 5 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
It is not my objections that would hinder them from leaving the union...


Do you have additional objections beyond the logistical issues?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join