Is the time for secession here?

Am I alone, or does anyone else see the parallels to history here? Just before the American Revolution, opinions were as divided as now. Not everyone was for independence. Many wanted to work out the problems with the Crown.

Yet, the unwillingness of the Court of King George to even reasonably discuss matters led to the declaration that nothing less than complete separation and freedom would suffice for the colonies. Is this a repeat of history?

People on both sides of the issue tday must heed the past, or face the outcome. I am now a tory, as I want to see a peaceful outcome to this conflict. Yet, I will under no circumstances abandon freedom.

"And the rights of the many are outweighed by the needs of the few."

Wait, that's not right.

You know something, as much as I hate to admit it here, we stand on the precipice of a very dark time for this nation. We stand poised on the edge of two possible outcomes, war, or a peaceful coup. Which it will be depends in large part on the actions of the people over the coming years. Hopefully, things can be resolved peacefully, as that's my only wish.

When will the decision be made that something needs done, and when will someone act on it? What will happen when they do?

Just a few of the questions plaguing my mind of late.

TheBorg

Originally posted by NGC2736

People on both sides of the issue tday must heed the past, or face the outcome. I am now a tory, as I want to see a peaceful outcome to this conflict. Yet, I will under no circumstances abandon freedom.

NGC, I'm in England and I was quite surprised to see you use the word "tory" (usually spelt with a capital T here to mean a member of the UK Conservative Party). I didn't know the term was much in use in America. Does it simply mean 'conservative' (or Republican even?) there or does it have some other shade of meaning?

[edit on 3-5-2007 by Mollo]

BTW, great thread, guys, and very informative to one who lives over the other side of the pond.

mollo, glad you're in on this. The use of the term "tory" over here is a historical one, as we have no such political group.At the time of the American Revolution those who were not in favor of separation from the mother country referred to themselves as loyalist, but were generally called torries by others. There seems to have been a bit of hostility in this term. Since the term was first used in the 17th century towards Irish outlaws, there may have been a derogatory element involved when used in America.

Considering that many people felt so strongly about remaining loyal, we know that the division over this issue of independence was never unanimous here. Many families moved to Canada rather than take part in the American Revolution. There was a great deal of fratricide over the issue, and relations with Canada seems to have been strained for some time.

Thanks for the explanation, NGC - in your usual eloquent and informative style. no less!

I shall continue reading this thread and I hope you all don't mind if I come in now and then to ask questions, some of which may seem a bit unnecessary to those living in America. I am really interested in what is being discussed here and keen to understand exactly what the issues are.

By all means, join in, an English voice should add new depth to our discourse. And I fear this is not just an American problem. The world is now too small for such containment.

The separation between rich and poor, powerful and powerless is widespread. I fear it is even now rearing it's ugly head on that side of the pond. This is a problem that needs be dealt with by all men. I'm sure you have seen the creeping serfdom that slithers into your own nation with each freedom that is removed.

It has long been my thought that men seldom have quarrels worthy of war, but that we have too many leaders willing to shed blood other than their own. Those who now speak in my nation for civil war will, I fear, want others to bleed the price of freedom while they live to reap the rewards of victory.

I fought my war, wrong as it may have been, and know the lack of glory that can be found in such action. I speak so bluntly now that no more may die for pretty words and lofty rhetoric laid out like a virgin bride to lead the young to a barren grave.

If I speak in a manner that others find old style, then it is because death itself is so unchanging to those beneath the sod.

And yet, sadly too, I also know that tyranny unchecked will eat the souls of men as surely as any beast from the abyss. Therein is the crux. Fight now with ballots or later with bullets.

I refer to my American symbol of freedom, the eagle. In one set of talons are the olive branches of peace, and in the other are the arrows of war. The choice will not be mine to make, as I'm not the aggressor. I'm merely one person with one idea that I feel needs to be voiced.

I have an opinion on just about everything, and I'm sure that most of them stink. But that's MY opinion. My voice is no louder than anyone else's, when they're screaming. The only reason anyone hears me now is because no one else is screaming with me. We need to make such a noise that it will be unmistakable what is desired by We the People. We shall demand change, and get it, as that's what we were told to do by the geniuses that founded this country told us to do. They knew that this would befall us, and prepared us for it, with the documents that you see so spoken of today. The very same documents that the current government is trampling all over, for no other reason than to oppress us.

TheBorg

Originally posted by TheBorg
The only reason anyone hears me now is because no one else is screaming with me.

Borg... I'm trying the best I can.... in a peaceable manner.

Originally posted by Infoholic
Borg... I'm trying the best I can.... in a peaceable manner.

Well, it's not a job for the faint of heart, lemme tell ya that much. I'll probably start emailing my Representatives a list of my grievances, and see what kind of response I get from them. If and when I do, I'll make a thread here and post both what I sent and what I receive back.

I'm really just looking for a solution; something more to go on, other than "sorry, we're fresh out of ideas".

TheBorg

Are you referring to doing something like this?

These are the only letter that I've posted. I've asked about everything from the 2nd amendment to the spp to the Gonzales hearings to... hell, you name it, i've questioned it.

I'm willing to bet Congress has me on speed dial (or at least "auto reply").

Borg and Infoholic, Great!!!! This is what is needed, to put the pressure on and then keep it on. As many as read these words and agree that change is needed should follow the example set by you both.

My hat is off.

Is the time for secession here? I don't think it's feasible.

I am seeing similar questions to this in talks with family and friends. Like "Why doesn't Texas secede?", or bringing up the possibility of moving to a foreign country for example. When people are faced with adversity like this, especially to this extent,"fight or flight" tendency kicks in.

For example, Ron Paul provides us with hope, but then it sinks in that we probably do not have until the election. Who is there that has the skills and experience to put together the new continental army without getting caught? No general could just arbitrarily do it themselves, but, there are some states who are openly debating the formation of state militias with the Governor as Commander in Chief. Some states have them already but are never used and the thought of doing so is not taken seriously, although I did write my governor to ask her to consider it, as the gov't took away the rights of governors to command the National Guard during emergencies in the rewritten Insurrection Act.

These are such haunting questions. It is so hard to believe that we must ask them. I don't know what to do. I just got hired into the Military Industrial Complex and as I was going down to get my picture taken for my new ID badge that has an RFID chip in it, I noticed these big tall turnstiles, and I said to myself "Hey!, I have seen those before! On that 15min FEMA Concentration Camp video!" The electronically operated turnstiles open for you by sensing your RFID chip. They are the same ones.

I'm having 2nd thoughts now, but I have to justify in my head that "I'm just gonna build commercial airplanes, not bombers". That will only fly so far though. Once Martial Law sets in, the government will be able to organize you into civilian work brigades under Army Regulation 210-35 Civilian Inmate Labor Program, and thats where I think they will take skilled workers in defense contractors and say "take the chip or it's off to the FEMA camp".

Hows the weather in Idaho or Montana this time of year? If it continues going the way it is, I see a population shift out of the cities and back into the rural areas coming.

[edit on 5/12/07 by Kelldor]

Originally posted by Kelldor
Is the time for secession here? I don't think it's feasible.

I am seeing similar questions to this in talks with family and friends.

Which just goes to illustrate how bad the situation really has gotten. When everyone, regardless of age is starting to talk about, and seriously consider such options, it's high time for those in power to take notice, and try to appease the people's wishes. If they don't, they risk losing everything they've tried to build.

Now, if they've been trying to build a slave state, then that'll just have to be done away with, as no one wants that, except them, if that truly is what they want. People are just getting tired of all of the trouble. They want things to be simpler, where they can be heard again. The long slumber is coming to and end, and there's nothing that the elites can do about it now.

Now, as I've said several times before, I'm not quite to the point of violent action, since I don't think there's quite enough reason to go there just yet. I still have faith in my system of government to come out of this in one piece. However, if we don't act soon, as one unified nation of PEOPLE, We all risk losing the freedoms that this nation was founded to provide. At that point, and that point alone, the time will come to act rashly. I pray that time never comes.

TheBorg

Many people on the net concerned about these issues support Rep. Ron Paul -Tx (R) for President. Why? His integrity, voting record, never flip-flopping, and he voted against the Iraq war, all appeal to folks. He WON the official MSNBC poll after the 1st debate, and once ABC put him in their poll he won that too, despite mainstream media not covering him. He is widely seen as "Founding Father" material.

For the Democrats, former Sen. Mike Gravel-Alaska is well liked in online circles for his opposition to our global empire building and his agreement with Eisenhower's speech warning against the Military Industrial Complex, as he was leaving office.

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.
www.youtube.com...

THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX CONTROLS THIS GOVERNMENT!
www.youtube.com...

Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel: "Eisenhower's Warning"
www.youtube.com...

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but, I do tell my Dem friends/family to consider Mike Gravel. After what Bush has done, some people won't consider a Repub, so I started looking at the Dems to find 1 who wasn't a Council on Foreign Relations crony. I found that I liked Gravel because of his wisdom in recognizing the Military Industrial Complex, and I saw in him good elder statesman-like qualities, if not "Founding Father" material.

This then led me to discover his "National Initiative". He proposes a Democracy Act and Democracy Amendment by, Get This....,

....Going around congress to do it!

I don't wish to debate this initiative here, that would detract from the thread authors original intent. I have looked at it and I am "not" promoting it. For more information on it, see ni4d.us...

Here's why I brought it up. He proposes something called a "Philidelphia 2", where each state sends representatives to a National Convention and we amend the constitution ourselves!

Can we do that you ask? Sure we can! We did it before, a couple times. Each state sent delegates to debate the original Articles of Confederation, and then later the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are 2 ways to amend the constitution. 1) Through our elected representatives, 2) By We the People.

Each states Gov. sends 2 delegates (or by enumeration), to a new convention, and we use our authority to amend the constitution. Article 5 of the constitution is only for amending it through our elected representatives, but article 7 deals with the Ratification of the original constitution itself at the Philadelphia Convention, which sets precedence for "We the People" to enact our own laws.

From where does congress and the president derive their authority? From "We the People", and they can't take that right away from us. Read the Preamble. If "We the People" can "establish this Constitution", then we sure as hell can amend it ourselves if we damn well want to!

The 9th amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people", so even though we give congress the right to make amendments and laws on our behalf, that can't be used to deny "We the People" of those same legislative rights we used at the Philadelphia Convention and still ourselves retain.

The 10th amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", which means "We the People" still reserve the right to hold our own "Constitutional Conventions" and amend our own constitution.

I am just borrowing the vehicle Gravel wants to use for his initiative, as a means to forward the idea of a new constitutional convention to make an amendment that fires our entire federal government, & hold new elections, not dominated by media or parties.

A constitutional Coup D'etat if you will.

1 last thought. As you may well know, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (NDAA2007), by means of rewriting the Insurrection Act, has not only weakened the Posse Comitatus Act broadening definitions where military can be used on U.S. soil, but has also stripped control of the National Guard from the states Governors during times of emergency.

This was largely due to failures during hurricane Katrina. Most people blame the administration for failing to deploy the guard soon enough, but at the time, it was not within his authority. That authority belonged to Gov. Kathleen Blanco, and for 3 days she didn't deploy the guard fearing political ramifications concerning infringements upon civil liberties of citizens. If I am incorrect in my historical account, please feel free to correct me, however, the reason the changes were made to the above acts were a direct result of the failure to deploy the National Guard in a timely fashion during time of emergency, regardless of where the blame lies.

Keeping that in mind, Governors all across the country are PISSED OFF that this power given to them under Article I, Section 8, clause 16, and the 2nd amendment, was taken away from them, without their advice or consent. No one in the administration, or in congress, consulted the governors regarding this power shift. That is a huge slap in the face, and now as a result, there are states openly debating the creating and deployment of a well regulated militia with the governor as Commander in Chief.

How does that relate to the above proposal? The governors are probably more likely now than ever to be amiable to a new "Constitutional Convention".

I would assume that the more legal way to do it would be that the state legislatures house votes on whether or not to attend and move the process forward. Once approved, sending the bill to the state senate. Once approved there, sending the agreed upon legislation to the governor who signs it into law. Then the governor nominates delegates (either 2 per state, or by enumeration, I am thinking by enumeration now that I look at the list of who attended the Philadelphia Convention), and then those delegates going before the state legislature for confirmation hearings.

Once the delegates are confirmed, they then would go meet at the convention, I suppose being in a place where the governors through maybe the National Governors Association could vote and agree upon.

My main point here though, is we currently have some ticked off governors and state legislatures regarding the Real ID Act, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership Initiative, and also the taking away of National Guard authority from the Governors during emergencies. So ticked off that some are forming and activating their own state militias.

That looks like ripe pickins to me! What do you think?

[edit on 5/15/07 by Kelldor]

[edit on 5/15/07 by Kelldor]

Kelldor, I am in agreement. Now may be the best time to move forward with such an end run. I am unsure how many governors would really get on board with this idea, but at the very least it would draw enough attention that the concerns of the working class would not be swept under the rug.

I would even go so far as suggesting a Constitutionalist Party being formed. This would give a platform for mainstream media to accept, even if the Rep/Dem block hated the idea, and tried to outlaw such a move.

There is a Constitution Party actually! I hope they get more noticeable, and get more support. I looked into the Libertarian Party, and they seemed weak on immigration, and they would just end social security with no attempt to fix it. As soon as I start my new job I am planning on joining the Constitution Party. I am not sure, just guessing, but I think that once the Republican Party chooses it's candidate, Ron Paul may run for the nomination of the Constitution Party.

WOW kelldor!! I must say, that's some fine research work that you've been doing!! If anyone deserves a WATS, it's you.

Anyway, I'm all for such a convention, as it would allow We the People to air all of the dirty laundering that we see going on up on Capitol Hill, as well as to fix it before any more crap can happen. Looks like times are indeed changing. It's going to be one fine year or two, isn't it? It's certainly shaping up to be a Reformer's dream come true. Here's to the future!!

TheBorg

Originally posted by Kelldor
There is a Constitution Party actually! I hope they get more noticeable, and get more support. I looked into the Libertarian Party, and they seemed weak on immigration, and they would just end social security with no attempt to fix it. As soon as I start my new job I am planning on joining the Constitution Party. I am not sure, just guessing, but I think that once the Republican Party chooses it's candidate, Ron Paul may run for the nomination of the Constitution Party.

I'm in.. This sounds good. I'm for it because I have very high respect for the Constitution no matter how old it is. It is the backbone of our country. It was written for a reason and no one should call it outdated. Anyone who states that, they don't love America.