It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


New Hampshire Fires First Shot Of Civil War

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:39 AM
reply to post by Contagion2012

The National Guard is NOT the militia, and it is not unconstitutional for them to be deployed out of their home state. The president asks the governor for permission to federalize the guard, which is always granted because of money. During the late 80s or early 90s there were instances of governors and state legislatures complaining about their guard units being deployed out of the country and threatening to not allow their units to be federalized. The reply from the feds was that they could always stop sending money to the states to help fund the guard units. As I recall, no state refused to allow their units to be federalized.

Money is the usual carrot that the feds use to get their way. Remember the discussions over raising the drinking age to 21? The feds threatened to withhold transportation funds from any state that did not raise the drinking age.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:50 AM
Just a heads-up while we're on this topic: the words we're all thinking, and trying to spell are "secede", and "secession".

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 08:55 AM
if and when the US collapses into civil war ill believe this.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:03 AM
reply to post by Hx3_1963

Why would you hold off on posting something? Because MSM isn't discussing it?

Speak out, be heard, stand for what you believe in! How else are we going to get issues like this pushed into the comfortable lives of the masses?

Below is a post I did for people wanting to get involved, do their part and contact their own state representatives:

I collected some links and a letter to send to your own representative. Email this to friends and family as well so they can contact their own reps.

Step 1: Look up your zip+4 (necessary to see who your representative is)

Step 2: Find out who your rep. is

Step 3: Email your representative (email I wrote is below, feel free to use it. I included the links.)

I'm writing this message to express my support for the state's sovereignty movement. Our nation's founding leaders penned the constitution to guarantee the American people's liberties and right to pursue happiness for as long as the idea can exist. I still think that idea of freedom exists today and believe the only way we can salvage our rights is to turn the major policy making process and power back over to our state's you! This ability was built into the United States Constitution for a reason and I'm glad some state's representatives are fighting for the Americans they were appointed to serve.

The 10th amendment reads: "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." and limits the federal government to powers expressly delegated and therefore denies any claims to powers that have been "implied". This means that many federal laws and regulations actually exist outside the legal scope of the constitution and are therefore illegal and do not apply to American residents in ANY state.

I am including information for state bills that a few states are trying to have approved in their own sessions. I believe New Hampshire's is actually on the floor today. I have included contact info. for sponsors of the bills as well in case you wanted to contact them.

I truly do thank you for your time. This country was founded by people like you and I who wanted to stand up for what we believe in and I think there is enough momentum in America right now to maybe stand a little taller and speak a little louder about the principals we hold to be true and self evident.


NH House Concurrent Resolution 6:
Tim Comerford -
Daniel Itse -
Paul Ingbretson -
Sen. William Denley -

Michigan House Resolution No. 6:

Michigan contact - Rep. Paul Opsommer:

Missouri HR 212:
Sponsor - Cynthia L. Davis
Co -sponsor - Timothy W. Jones

Montana House Bill No. 246:
Sponsored by Joel Boniek - Home: (406)220-1240 (can’t find his e-mail)

Oklahoma State Sovereignty bill HJR 1089:
Charles Key -

Washington 10th amendment HJM 4009:

Washington residents can e-mail reps here:

Matt Shea - (360) 786-7984
Brad Klippert - (360) 786-7882
Cary Condotta - (360) 786-7954
Joel Kretz - (360) 786-7988
Glenn Anderson - (360) 786-7876
Jim McCune - (360) 786-7824
Dan Kristiansen - (360) 786-7967

Hawaii - Movement for a Constitutional Convention:

California SJR 44 from 1994:

Arizona State Sovereignty bill HCR 2024:

AZ Representatives sponsoring the resolution:

Cecil P. Ash -
Nancy K. Barto -
Andy Biggs -
Judy M. Burges -
Tom Boone -
Cloves C. Campbell Jr. -
Steve Court -
Rich Crandall -
Sam Crump -
Adam Driggs -
Patricia V. Fleming -
Doris Goodale -
David Gowan -
Laurin Hendrix -
John Kavanagh -
Debbie Lesko -
Lucy Mason -
John McComish -
Barbara McGuire -
Ben R. Miranda -
Steve B. Montenegro -
Rick Murphy -
Warde V. Nichols -
Lynne Pancrazi -
Frank Pratt -
Doug Quelland -
Carl Seel -
David Stevens -
Andrew M. Tobin -
Jerry Weiers -
AZ Senator Jack W. Harper -

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:26 AM
For one thing, you boys in the states oughtn't to be wanting a civil war. They are horribly messy affairs which ruin the proper running of a country for a generation as it has to pick itself back up.

For another, this will come to nothing. History will not remember this act. In the current state that the economy is in, the states are all going to need, or more to the point, ask for, state aid at some point. When New Hampshire's time comes, they are going to # this nonsense in the bin and lie down.

Also you need to look at what other states are honestly going to back them up. Issues one and two combine here. People might be unhappy about the current situation, but essential the idea of sessesion from the government is not going to be widespread, and as the years go on and the country gets increasingly unified, it will grow increasingly less popular.

What we have here is ineffectual posturing. Nothing more.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 09:57 AM
I would like to point out that on a thread I recently posted Byrd gave a fairly comprehensive breakdown on what a resolution is and it's power.

I would have to agree with him, because I am not sure that they actually mean anything but hot air, CYA's, fluff for the masses, or maybe they do only time will tell now.

When I see all the states collectively abolishing the Federal Reserves and the IRS then I will know something is being done.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by MoothyKnight
still ABSOLUTELY no coverage of this on the MSM

Because they're resolutions.

ANY member of a legislative house can bring up a resolution for any number of things.

Texas (for instance) once passed a resolution announcing 2/28/97 as "Taiwan Peace Day." I don't believe it made much of an impact in the news and it certainly hasn't made waves since then:

We passed legislation saying that the "Blue Lacy" (a dog breed I've never heard of) is the Official State Dog Breed of Texas:

They passed a resolution to express good wishes to the Divine Performers for the Chinese New Year Celebration:

Resolutions also recognize/honor college and university events:

...and so on and so forth. Every state legislature passes dozens of these each day and the newspapers could fill up their columns just reprinting the texts with no commentary. I've seen resolutions honoring the scouts, honoring veterans, honoring newsmakers, honoring town centennials and so forth.

Resolutions are designed to make the people of the Congresscritter's district (and some others) feel Really Good about their Congresscritter... so that they will vote the dear Congresscritter back into office. Since these are basically "we affirm states rights" resolutions, they're really sort of a "non issue" (like saying "we affirm that the state government works.")

Here's the one that says "the US government allows each state two representatives and the Texas government is delighted to have two representatives in the US congress.:

So if you're expecting grand and sweeping changes from this, you're looking at the wrong direction. It's a "feel good" paper. It isn't a states revolt.

Look up resolutions brought by your own state representatives to see just how vapid many of them are and see how little of an impact resolutions have on the overall government.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Realtruth

When I see all the states collectively abolishing the Federal Reserves and the IRS then I will know something is being done.

Star for you on this one quote you gave. You got it absolutely right.
It will not be the states though, it will be using the 2nd amendment.
I wrote Gerald Celente an email and he responded. If you don't know who he is, you better check him out. He does know what the hell he is talking about. Below is the email I sent and received.

Hello Gerald,

There is no easy way out, but the way you suggest, to me (eliminating the Fed. Res., state's rights and a return to the Constitution is the only way to salvage our nation.
----- Original Message -----
From: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:33 PM
Subject: question

What happens in the trends if enough US citizens formed up
and made a correction in the Govt.?
The corrections to be, taking out the Fed. Res. Bank., so no private
central bank.
Clearing of the Debt owed to the owners of the Fed. Reserve.
Cleaning house on the two political parties.
Return of power to the states, and a return to running from the
I think it will be rough either way. But would it be better to come
out of it with a clean slate? Or, would this just make it worse?

Best Regards,

Gerald Xxxxxxxxx


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.21/1945 - Release Date: 2/11/2009 8:01 AM

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:16 AM
reply to post by blackopsman
There are not the many of them. Not nearly enough, they are small potatoes and not the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, if ya catch my drift.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:23 AM
I don't think that civil war will necessarily result from states passing these resolutions. If enough states adopt these policies and stop enforcing federal legislation, then the federal government loses matter who tries to fight. My concern is, the growth of the U.S. military (of which I am a veteran) has effectively done away with the idea of local militias, so there really is no local peace force to protect the individual states if the fed. govt. does decide to step in with it's own peace officers.

I agree though, civil war would be bad...right? Maybe better than being forced into servitude and reeducation camps. Maybe better than having our food and water rationed. Maybe better than a permanent widespread state of poverty.

Here are some links for you all to read up on:

Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty

Eight states NOW declaring sovereignty

OK Rep. to reintroduce state sovereignty bill

Multiple states introducing sovereignty, tax, or arms rights bills

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:25 AM
great thread guys!

and great conversation about whats going on! A few things Imho, should go on here

1: everyone call NH senators and give them accolades!!! kudos!!! support!!! offer then your collective spirit. They have indeed been very brave
2. Call your own state senator and tell them to support these NH politicians.
3. tell your friends
4. meditate and pray on the awakening of the masses for PEACEFUL RESTORATION other than violent revolution. Either way, like a Shaolin monk, we should aim to be peaceful and train everyday to become sharper and keep up the resistance.

aside for the mighty Jesus and God planning a violent revolution in America, we have the power to mold our future. the More awake, spread, these steps are ( I believe they might be passing baby steps if the one post of 20 state is indeed right starting these resolutions, I've heard of 9 with like 7 or 6 being serious) internationally known about, the support all around for a better life outside the corporate governance etc will occur. Be mindful where you shop, the people you hang out with, where you bank, and all this.

I wanna link the thread about no1 liking bankers. Awakening? yes. keep it up guys. No1 said ATS had to be the biggest groups, but they will be groups within groups composed of individuals making differences all around the world.

So in the words of my favorite ninja turtle "Keep it rockin' bros!

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:25 AM
I can not wait to see the outcome of this situation.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:26 AM
It looks like NH HCR6 has been stopped in its tracks (sorry if this has already been posted - I'm at work and as soon as I saw this, I knew it needed to be thrown up here):

NH HCR6 Railroaded in the Executive Session

"Now we have the Executive Session, where the bill is railroaded to ITL. A movement to ITL comes quickly from Patrick Garrity and is seconded by Dom Domingo."

"Several Reps speak passionately for the bill, most notably Alfred Baldasaro and Lars Christiansen. Christiansen holds up a sheaf of emails from constituents supporting the bill. Not one Rep speaks against it or gives the slighest hint of why it should be opposed."

"And yet when the vote comes, it is overwhelmingly against the bill."

From: The Daily Paul

Just my gut feeling here, but since not one rep spoke against it, yet they overwhelmingly voted against it, makes it seem to me that they are patting their constituents on the head while stabbing them in the back, as uncle sam lines their pockets.


posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 10:40 AM
I will comment on the National Guard. I WAS in the Army National Guard but I am now in the Army Reserve. I understand how it works to a limited extent.

Yes the NG belongs to the state. It is a militia. The NG is under the command and control of the Governor. In fact the oath of enlistment for the NG is different than the rest of the military.. you swear alligence to the state and the Fed. At the request, should say order, of the president the Governor GIVES the NG to the US government. The state would never think twice about not giving the NG to the US... the US is where all the equipment comes from. The states cannot afford to equip their militias with all the tools of war. So the FED gives up equipment/training and the states give up a trained combat force.

The likelihood of a state recalling the NG that is on federal orders is VERY slim. First off the NG would loose all of its equipment in country(ie. Iraq) and the price of getting them(NG soldiers) back to the state would be too high. It would be best to wait for the NG units to cycle back to the State and then not "loan" them out again. That would be a high price to pay because of the loss of equipment and training from the US.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:14 AM
Wow, just wow.

Now, what is interesting is to see what Obama has to say about it.

Also, yes i must bring it up again, titor and his civil war for US prediction.

If it gets nasty, will national guard be called in to help or arrest the state officials.

Would the Federal troops be brought in to restore the status quo???

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:37 AM
Does anyone remember the movie "Braveheart"?

All of this reminds me of the powers that be playing both sides with all of this talk.

Do the state legislators actually mean what they say?

I have no faith in most politicians because the lie and it only takes one lie to ruin your credibility.

How many people of authority have lied to us? Demo and Repubs alike.

Robert the Bruce: A rebellion has begun.

Robert Bruce, Sr.: Under whom?

Robert the Bruce: A commoner named William Wallace.

Robert Bruce Sr.: We will embrace this rebellion. You will support it from our lands in the north while I gain English favor by condemning it, and ordering it opposed from our lands in the south. Sit down. Stay a while.

Robert the Bruce: This Wallace, he doesn't even have a knighthood, but he fights with passion and he inspires.

Robert Bruce, Sr.: And you wish to charge off and fight as he did. So would I.

Robert the Bruce: Well, maybe it's time.

Robert Bruce, Sr.: It is time to survive. You're the 17th Robert Bruce. The 16 before you passed you land and title because they didn't charge in. Call a meeting of the nobles.

Robert the Bruce: But they do nothing but talk.

Robert Bruce, Sr.: Rightly so. They're as rich in English titles and lands as they are in Scottish, just as we are. You admire this man, this William Wallace. Uncompromising men are easy to admire. He has courage, so does a dog. But it is exactly the ability to compromise that makes a man noble. And understand this: Edward Longshanks is the most ruthless king ever to sit in the throne of England. And none of us, and nothing of Scotland will remain, unless we are as ruthless. Give in to our nobles. Knowing their minds is the key to the throne.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:40 AM

Originally posted by RealtruthDoes anyone remember the movie "Braveheart"?

Yes, it's unhistorical bull# made by people making a quick buck off showing the English getting cut up.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:46 AM
"Requiring involuntary servitude"

There is no law in the united states or outside of the united states that requires manditory complaince. And im glad at least new hampture finnaly reconised it. Every State has a constitution and any powers that are given to elected representitives can be taken away by the people.

Ive had fun going after lawyers and judges thinking there all high and mighty and they come to find out there laws are all defaco upon face and passing. Any judge that does not excuse him or her self can be hit with a number of crimes to remove them from the bench and the same goes for a politician.

Oh I can see the fight starting to brew over this, the question is now is how many other states will follow this example this might be the start of the next american civil war.

By the way any judges or proscuters that jailed someone or a group for a crime they commited doesnt matter if the law was defacto upon its passing or attempting to be passed. If it's unconstitutional its defacto and beyond that it vilolates artical 1 section 8 "congress shall make no law that abridges the rights of the citizen."

Lets the war begin.


posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by falconLets the war begin.

Civil wars are incredibly dirty, bloody affairs and you do not want one. You think Iraq is a waste of money? Think of most of every state's income going to fighting a war against other Americans, the repercussions of which will last many, many years.

Not a good thing.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:04 PM
Big big news, I will be back after migraine meds to comment... Ty for the thread.

posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by MajesticJax

Hilarious considering you cannot even prove that the fictional NWO even exists. Paranoia runs deep in this forum.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in