Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New Hampshire Defining Actions by which they can FIRE the U.S. Government

page: 6
158
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mithrawept
I'm not a US citizen, so please forgive me if I am wrong - the last time there was secession from the union was prior to the American Civil War?

Would I be right in saying that the secession of even a large number of states, would not necessarily force dissolution of the current union?

Could the President consider a breakaway (or 'rogue' as I am sure the media would label it) state to be a domestic enemy? After all, he is sworn to 'defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and the state concerned would not thereby be party to the constitution?

Not trying to put a downer on this, I just don't quite understand the implications.


The answer to your first question is yes, it has not happened since the civil war.

The answer to your second question is also yes, this would not necessarily cause a dissolution of the union, unless it was an overwhelming majority, and even then there would most likely be war.

As for the last question, yes he could, however, this would cause even more states to secede. This would be the last ditch effort from the central government to stay in power. They would most assuredly negotiate out of the ordeal long before it came to that.

We have already had two revolutions in this country, the first we won, the second we lost. The civil war was not about slavery as commonly believed, it was about loss of sovereignty of the states. Before the realignment amendments, the states were the governing force of themselves, afterwords they ceded that power to the central government. Some states still have not officially ratified those amendments.

This is why both New Hampshire and Arizona are claiming the 10th amendment rights of the states, because after realignment, the 9th and 10th amendments were all but made moot.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by DarrylGalasso]




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mithrawept
 


Now that's what I'd like to know...who's who...the Federal government or the State...I'd say by constitutional decree the Fed would be the Hostile institution...the constitution says the majority of power is vested in the state...

[edit on 2/3/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mithrawept
 


Combat most likely would not happen.
Each state has it's own Constitution to follow by. They also have their own National Guard, police, ect. Each state is designed to opporate independently. The Fed. is only suppose to protect our rights, not run them. That is what is at issue here. The Fed. has gotten to big a little at a time starting from 1913 under Woodrow Wilson.
He later said in grief, that he has ruined his country and the best thing the world ever had. Well, he was right.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by j2000
 


Well States SHOULD have their own Defense...look at Kentucky just now...really at a loss with the Ice Storm...REALLY...could they defend their Citizens when 3/4 are over-Seas? Good way to leave the "Homeland" open to "Hostile Takeover"...just ship off their "Defenders"...


[edit on 2/3/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Keep your eyes open for the Third Continental Congress!



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
What does land cost in New Hampshire?
Be nice to live in a free country.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
What an interesting thread, I am sorry if this was brought up before and I missed it but i think there's an angle that we are overlooking here.
All the States collect taxes (through their IRS agents) and send the revenues to the feds who then dole the monies back out. Now since several states are basically bankrupt the more financially stable states will forfeit alot of their tax base to other worse off states. This looks like a move to secure finances for New Hampshire, the only other states that might ratify something like it will be the solvent ones.
I still like the idea, States rights, we fought a war against each other over that (slavery was a side show.) I think it would lead to war again, so I don't believe it will be ratified. What is more likely to happen? these state officials will have their and their families finances guaranteed by the Fed to buy them out. I believe this is the real intention of this bill, a chess move by some desperate politicians that must have had bad investments.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
What does land cost in New Hampshire?
Be nice to live in a free country.


Outrageous just like all of the East Coast.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by JMartinMahoney
I agree with everyone that this is truly exciting news and a pivotal point in American history. Let us see what New Hampshire can do as an example for the rest of the country. More power to them. I sincerely hope that the Legislature of New Hampshire has done their research on the depth that the corporation called The United States of America reaches into the fabric of what this country was meant for. As politicians, I'm sure they have a pretty good picture of what has been going on for a VERY long time, but do some of the readers of this forum have any idea?

Senate Report 93-549(93rd Congress,1st Session,1973):

" A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of thier lives under Emergency Rule...And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crisis have - from, at least, the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of National Emergency. " -and every "crisis" since has been designed to keep it that way.(Examples:Exec.Order12938 11/14/94-Pres.WilliamClinton, Patriot Act I&II GeorgeHerbertWalkerBush)

The "Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia" Section 34 of the 41st Congress of the United States, Session III, Chapter 61 & 62, enacted February 21, 1871:

" The United States is a corporation, whose jurisdiction is only within the ten- square mile parcel of land known as the District of Columbia and to whatever properties are legally titled to the U.S., by it's registration in the corporate County, State, and Federal Governments that are under military power of the U.S. and it's Creditors."

The District of Columbia Organis Act of 1871 incorporated the District of Columbia as a foreign, private corporation and all the member States were reformed as franchises, political sub-divisions of that same corporation.
(Dyett vs. Turner (1968) 439 Pacific Reporter 2d, 266, 267; Utah vs.Philips (1975) 540 Pacific Reporter 2d, 936 941-942)

What, pray tell...is New Hampshire going to do about the plethora of express and implied CONTRACTS that binds that State Government to the Federal level such as FRN's(Federal Reserve Notes) and many other undesirable binders(blinders) that have as of yet been officially verified as implied contracts(14nth Amendment status, Birth Certificate, Social Security) that applies to each and every individual within that State?

NH has a tough nut to crack!


For one thing, We The People, are the Creditors of the Corporation, We are incorporated and so are listed as under Corporate Statutory Law as JOHN DOE (All Caps) instead of under Common Law John of the Family of Doe, or JOHN: DOE, that is United State's of the Family of America, or, US: A.

When the Books don't balance, and, they just can't claim $30, 000 for a wrench for some open ended project like Defense, National Security, InfraStructure, NASA, etc. then, they have no choice, but, to kill the Creditor. That's US. We get sent off to die in every War and Conflict they can concieve. We are sterilized, and, our food and water, and medicine is poisoned, etc. That way when the Accounting comes due, the Books will Balance.

We, the Creditor, can call off the Contracts made in Our Name, as, We Reserve All Rights as against the Rights of Government.

I for One don't care about the National Debt, or any other Contractual Obligation of the US. I will not pay or honor them anyways. What's more, I defend the Constituion of Our founding Father's, and, only acknowledge their Original Intent. Anything else occurs without my Consent. I will never serve any other System or Constitution. No matter what the Law says, or, who comes to enforce it. I'd prefer Death, and, I won't hand my death to anyone.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by racegunz
 


New Hampshire?!? They're in the top 1/3 of "Responsible" Goverence...read the thread...sure land taxes are higher but they "Try" to be self-sufficient...I need to look closer..I lived in Maine in 2003 and they are alot different than michigan...Sec of State was only open 2-3 days a week...Liquor had state over-sight? They had problems but...



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
Do you people really think this is going to come about. It's nice to think so but the fact is it will be silenced by the Fed. Who's side do you people think the national news media supports. It's certainly not the citizenry of this country. How about the FedReserve and the IRS. Do you think they serve the public good ?. Some individuals say we have no alternative but to consider a violent revolution to correct the Fed problem. That's foolish ! Blood-shed is not the answer and will make the situation much worse. While I certainly side with the idea to "fire" the fed gov, I don't see how we can do it. There is a huge majority of Pro-Government "rectums". How can we convince them to realize the FedGov is a monster and turn against that evil ?. I challenge the editors of ATS to add this thread reply to the topic post and show they believe in fairness reply.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mithrawept
I'm not a US citizen, so please forgive me if I am wrong - the last time there was secession from the union was prior to the American Civil War?

Would I be right in saying that the secession of even a large number of states, would not necessarily force dissolution of the current union?

Could the President consider a breakaway (or 'rogue' as I am sure the media would label it) state to be a domestic enemy? After all, he is sworn to 'defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic' and the state concerned would not thereby be party to the constitution?

Not trying to put a downer on this, I just don't quite understand the implications.


And, it would be his Right.

However, that is exactly how We would label and treat them also.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


You miss-understood me, I was pretty sure that it was as you stated the State of New Hampshire is in good financial order so they do not want to lose their share of monies re-embursed by the IRS to them to other states like california, or my second hypothesis was that theindividual politicians are trying to force the hand of the real rulers to give them a piece of the pie. I just don't trust any of them, it's gone on too long, they are all corrupt.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by racegunz
What an interesting thread, I am sorry if this was brought up before and I missed it but i think there's an angle that we are overlooking here.
All the States collect taxes (through their IRS agents) and send the revenues to the feds who then dole the monies back out. Now since several states are basically bankrupt the more financially stable states will forfeit alot of their tax base to other worse off states. This looks like a move to secure finances for New Hampshire, the only other states that might ratify something like it will be the solvent ones.
I still like the idea, States rights, we fought a war against each other over that (slavery was a side show.) I think it would lead to war again, so I don't believe it will be ratified. What is more likely to happen? these state officials will have their and their families finances guaranteed by the Fed to buy them out. I believe this is the real intention of this bill, a chess move by some desperate politicians that must have had bad investments.


Why are People debating what the State and Fed's will or won't do???

Why aren't they discussing what The People, and Themselves, will or won't do??

I don't care what State's or the Fed's will or won't do. I stopped caring ages ago. What are you willing to do? If nothing, then, say so, so you can be grouped with the State's and fed's who do nothing, that way, we'll at least know where everyone stands when the time comes.

I'm pushing this agenda on everyone. Every person and entity I can, no matter what their affiliations, creed, color, and all of that.

What does it matter, whether politicians or business are so powerful. I have more power in my one little finger than they do in all their technology.

*** PhyberDragon Extends Finger ***

[edit on 3-2-2009 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
reply to post by tjeffersonsghost
 


You are in fact right about the taxes, however, I was looking at a less confrontational method. I highly doubt the entire population would go along with this and if it were just a small portion avoiding taxes would only get people put in jail and I would never recommend to friends or co-harts anything that would endanger them personally.

Also I believe that the country only makes approximately 975 billion a year in income tax revenue. This is not even 1/4 of the government's revenue. In fact the personal income tax revenue will barely pay off the interest on the national debt.

None, the less taking almost a trillion dollars would definitely have a most profound effect on the beast, perhaps not kill it, but definitely inflict heavy damage.


No actually the income tax is over $1 trillion and is where almost 50% of the revenue comes from




The interest is around $450 billion right now

I agree Im not advocating anything Im just saying if everyone was to quit paying taxes it would shut the government down in a hurry....



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by racegunz
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


You miss-understood me, I was pretty sure that it was as you stated the State of New Hampshire is in good financial order so they do not want to lose their share of monies re-embursed by the IRS to them to other states like california, or my second hypothesis was that theindividual politicians are trying to force the hand of the real rulers to give them a piece of the pie. I just don't trust any of them, it's gone on too long, they are all corrupt.


To assume that there are no good people in government is basically to give up hope and consign one's self to an eventual revolution or war. We know there are some good folks there, the problem is that they account for about 5% of the government.

In my opinion what we need to do is to make that number increase to 60-70%. Most people in the world will do the right thing IF they are held accountable. This has been our problem for far too long, we have ignored what was going on because either it did not affect us personally or because we were blissful with our economy. Now that the economy has come to a grinding halt, more eyes are opened to the vast amount of corruption and now we as a people are starting to scream "foul", when the sad fact is that if we had been holding them accountable the whole time, we would never be in this position today.

To quote the great Thomas Jefferson once again (he is my favorite historical figure):

"Leave no authority existing not responsible to the people."

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Well...if things continue as they are now...I propose a April 1st "event"...any Ideas?

1.) No Sales Tax (WE refuse to pay?)
2.) No Work Day (Can't collect taxes on Employment if we ain't workin')
3.) No Nuttin' Day (Just sit home and Veg)
4.) (Help me out here...)



[edit on 2/3/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tjeffersonsghost
 


I stand corrected, as I said "I believed" I was not certain, thanks for the clarification.

I'll give ya a star for the effort of looking that up, nice work!


[edit on 2/3/2009 by DarrylGalasso]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by tjeffersonsghost
General Yamamoto during WW2 always had this in mind if the Japanese were to invade the US. He knew that invading meant a gorilla warfare like no other because "people will be in the weeds all armed"
[edit on 3-2-2009 by tjeffersonsghost]




I believe his precise words (though translated) were...

"An invasion of the mainland of the United States would be impossible. Behind every blade of grass there would be a rifle."



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
*snip*

That is correct I have seen that quote before as well, but I just took it as the point it was intended for. I myself have done it before, so far be it from me to be corrective in it.

removed large quote of previous post.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by GAOTU789]





new topics

top topics



 
158
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join