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.

 

The Revolution Begins March 4, 2009 in Concord, NH!

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:52 AM
link   
On March 4th, 2009 in Concord New Hampshire all the rules change and the revolution begins! If you believe in states' rights join the protest in Concord New Hampshire on March 4, 2009:

www.nhliberty.org...

As mentioned on Free Talk Live on their February 14, 2009 broadcast!

Spread the word!




posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 02:55 AM
link   
All it takes is one.

When that happens, they will drop down like dominos.

I'm surprised Alaska or Texas isn't the first to go. They have been trying to do this for a long time.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:13 AM
link   
ya know...go NH....im all about it...but im a little pissed that no one is speaking on the fact that my state, the great Oklahoma started this *snip* like 8 or 9 months ago...there's threads about it on ATS but people are acting like NH is the second coming of the Constitution. But whatever..whatever gets the message, the movement, and the consciousness out there...im down for it. Although, where the *snip* is Texas on this? I mean, come on!

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by GAOTU789]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by midnightbrigade
 


I believe Texas and California did or are planning to.

New Meetup: Texas Sovereignty Meeting
www.meetup.com...

Legal status of Texas
en.wikipedia.org...

California case to test state sovereignty
findarticles.com...



[edit on 2/15/2009 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Don't use the word "revolution" when all it will be is just a march.

Revolution begins when citizens start 'fighting back' against politicians and soldiers.
That is far from now since America does not have brave men and women anymore. And if they do..... Where have they been? They were suppose to bring down the Bush administration.

Where are the brave patriots? I see none.
Have fun at your rally.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Soon, in Texas they will speak Texan.
In Oklahoma - Oklahoman.
In Massachusetts - Massachusettsian.
In California - Californian.
In Arizona - Arizonian.
In Georgia - Georgian.
In Alabama - Alabaman...

It is called: Balkanization.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thebeast2012
 


Starred!

Honestly, you sensationalist fools think that somehow exaggerating your case through wishful thinking will spark what you want - a bloodbath revolution. It's really getting old. And I also agree with the commenter that mentioned Oklahoma as having started this series of events, even though they didn't so much as start them as re-energize the trend of passing resolutions in the event of some bogey Federal gov't action.

I doubt we will see any beneficial result come from this though.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 

I have to agree with you. Why do so many think that these states individually "declaring sovereignty" is a good thing? Let alone, that this has been done before. OKLAHOMA was first??? No, I believe that CA was the first, in 2004. Regardless...we divide this nation and we have accomplished nothing, and IMO, have played right into the hand of the plan...
A collective "We the People..." type of proposal would be much more effective, and much harder to ignore.
I wish NH all the luck in the world...it's too bad that the smallest state is the first to step up, not the largest. Me thinks if it gets out of hand there, we'll see what they have in store for the rest of us. They should be pretty easy to ignore...or to step on, in either case.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by thebeast2012
 

It does not begin with violence, it begins with thought and planning. A choice has to be made, for the betterment of a nation. Then things move forward, I would think. This is a step in the right direction, and let the storm troopers try to squash these birth pains, for then they will truly stir the pot and get the ball rolling, one might think. This is how I might envision things "evolving".



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 


I don't believe this for one moment. You miss a key point, that all these states are in complete agreement about the abuses and that they won't take it anymore. They are allies, not separate. Think of it as having a friend on your side. None of these states want their own separate nation, they just want the tyrants out of their business. Your point is completely misleading to say the least.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 09:44 AM
link   
These states should then form some new type of union, and then as others move toward this, it would be reformation, going back to the original principles. You have to pull away from the mother's teet, to then join back up again away from that byatch. Let her flounder and untimately fall, and the states can work together supporting each other for the time being. I see potential in that. There would not be anything, without the individual states, that's actually funny when thought about, without the states, they are nothing.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I saw it as just redneck small states that don't like seeing a black man run the country.

It's like the whole slavery thing over again.

Look who lost the first civil war.

The whole world loves Obama and hates Bush.

Seriously... who do you think will win this one?

If it goes to war, the insurgency will be so squashed they wont know what hit them.

Very silly maneuver in my opinion.

Time is a great story teller, Swedish proverb



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I wonder why people always assume that a revolution has to be violent to be effective? Revolutions can be peacefull and effective and have a strong impact on the culture.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   
There isn't anything 'Revolutionary' about this at all. It's more reactionary. Mostly because of the massive financial stresses the federal government has caused on the States, they are putting the Fed on-notice that they, the States, are the bodies empowered by the Constitution --- not the Federal Government. And those powers granted by the States and the People to the Federal Government are specifically limited to those powers.

Esentially the Feds are being told to get out of States' business and to remember who the boss really is: The People and The States. Most people have no idea how much of States' budgets are mandated to be spent on Federal programs. In this current fiscal nightmare the States are fed-up. In a nutshell, this is not about secession, not about revolution and entirely about limiting Federal powers to those granted by The Constitution --- and NO more.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hx3_1963


I believe Texas and California did or are planning to.



CA and it's $42B debt can leave the union anytime. Hell - let them join up with mexico. The state is mostly mexican anyway.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacial
I saw it as just redneck small states that don't like seeing a black man run the country.

It's like the whole slavery thing over again.

Look who lost the first civil war.

The whole world loves Obama and hates Bush.

Seriously... who do you think will win this one?

If it goes to war, the insurgency will be so squashed they wont know what hit them.

Very silly maneuver in my opinion.

Time is a great story teller, Swedish proverb


Prime example of ...why Americans are frowned upon now. No guts. All pessimists. We need less people with this kind of thinking. Only time will tell..



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I'll move.

I'll ride my bike to New Hampshire to be a part of it. If there intentions are as serious as they're making it out to be, I would love to give a helping hand with whatever I can.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie
 


I watched an interview on Glenn Beck's tv show with a state legislator from New Hampshire. Despite his views on state sovereignty, he also admitted that NH will be taking the federal stimulus dollars.

Doesn't this seem kinda hypocritical and/or contradictory?

If they are 100% establishing their state sovereignty, should they isolate themselves 100% from federal funding?

(This is a serious question, not even trying to play Devil's advocate here...truly interested in what is the right course of action here?)



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MOFreemason
 


The states have no choice but to accept the money........its in the bill!!



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cloudsinthesky
 


But they don't have to accept federal transportation dollars by adhering to speed limit laws, or Dept. of Education dollars to comply with NCLB etc. etc. etc.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join