The South is rising again

It's easy to understand where alot of you are coming from in regards to the clash between 'constitutionalists' and 'those other people. But you have to realize the USG is moving into a new age, one with a new theme on government. There are world events that may influence our feelings towards a totalitarian government. Take for instance, if you have a family you may not want to have a pit bull as a pet. But in the woods, with wolves constantly about, it wouldn't seem like such a bad idea. That is how you are being treated, weighed and prospected.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Blood Eagle]

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Let's really think through some of the ideas of seceding and stop paying taxes to the federal government.


So what happens when the states stop paying taxes and say they are seceding??? Well of course all federal funding will cease to that state.

This is a very very short list of progams that will stop...Medicare, Social Security payments, welfare, food stamps, education funding, transportation funding, FDIC, mortgage backing, money circulation, farm subsidies...I'm sure there are thousands of more...this is just off the top of my head.

Medicare, social security, welfare, food stamps: That state is going to have a lot of very poor, hungry and sick people. Any plans on dealing with that?

Education funding: Teachers aren't going to work for free...colleges will most likely shut down too.

In the first place our taxes don't even go to the government. Our national debt is so great that the taxes all go to interest on the debt that we owe to the FED. The government gives the states back from it's largess from borrowing from the FED (which prints it out of thin air and adds it to the national debt) The government can afford to give the compliant states unlimited money because it isn't real money. If the authority isn't taken back by the states and everything is allowed to continue as it is, we the people will no longer be able to pay that interest (on borrowed magic money) and the FED in its wisdom will collapse the whole system and get the money out of us some other way. They seem to be experimenting on Iceland.

The system is going to shut down whether we secede or not. We have a chance to win if we try, but if we roll over and bow to corrupt authority we will just get massacred like the Jews in Nazi Germany without being able to put up any kind of a fight..


[edit on 16-3-2010 by m khan]

Originally posted by Blood Eagle
It's easy to understand where alot of you are coming from in regards to the clash between 'constitutionalists' and 'those other people. But you have to realize the USG is moving into a new age, one with a new theme on government. There are world events that may influence our feelings towards a totalitarian government.

Please realize that we do not want a "new age" run by the same school that caused Nazi Germany. Any new world government will not be a democracy or a republic. Why on earth do you want to live in a totalitarian system. Don't you realize that the leaders of such a system aren't going to bother about right and wrong and what is legal or not. Our government is heading that way right now! Why should we throw our democratic republic away for nothing? We certainly have nothing to gain from totalitarianism

...if you have a family you may not want to have a pit bull as a pet. But in the woods, with wolves constantly about, it wouldn't seem like such a bad idea. That is how you are being treated, weighed and prospected.

Do you think that our government, the way it is headed is not a pit-bull that will eat your family?
Do you think that there is any threat left out there that is not coming, even if in secret, from our government.

I can't believe you are openly condoning totalitarianism. Your signature says you are airforce or at least like airforce. What stake do you see for yourself in this "new age?" Do you believe that it is necessary to kill 95% of the population in order to achieve a sustainable planet?

The wolves that you are talking about are now being trained by CIA in Juarez, among other places, and being paid with drugs. Some of these wolves are getting practice in
Africa and Haiti. Do you want these wolves attacking our families to convince them that your "new age" can be their savior? This won't probably happen at once, but gradually gradually. People will say like in Juarez, Oh those drug wars are getting so bad and comment like in Juarez how tragic it is that the police patrols just miss the incidents by minutes.

You may be part of this military, but do you really hate your people so much as to help this process.


[edit on 16-3-2010 by m khan]

S&F for you.

The states need to start behaving like what they are: SOVEREIGN STATES. And not like what the hydra wants and is treating them: FEDERAL DISTRICTS.

Exo

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Exopolitico]

Originally posted by Vitchilo
Yep. Violence is not necessary if states had balls.

Stop sending taxes to the feds, stop receiving money from the feds and start arresting the feds trying to enforce their unconstitutionnal laws in your state.

No violence needed.

In that case we Californians demand we get the billions we pay to the federal government that later gets distributed amongst the poorer mostly Southern states of the union...We end up getting 65-72 cents per dollar we send to washington while other states receive upwards of 1.25 per dollar they send...So why should a state that requires more money to operate such like California and New York receive 1/50th of the money sent back to the states? If we went by your reasoning then we'd have a great disproportion in wealth individual states have. Doesn't sound appealing now does it?

reply to post by Vitchilo


The rise of the south had little to nothing to do with freedom. That article is obviously a sugarcoating of what true reasons behind the Southern resistance. It was the election win of Republican party led by Lincoln that led to 7 southern states declaring independence. They did not want to end slavery and this was for the part their reasoning behind the civil war. This wasnt because the 'federal government was imposing' as the Democrats at the time were steadfast southern, and had no intention of removing slavery, but because they lost through constitutional means, the south wanted to pack their bags and leave.

Jefferson Davis even admitted it himself in his comment towards lincoln:

The condition of slavery with us is, in a word, Mr. President, nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority." - He said this in the Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol on February 29, 1860.

jeffersondavis.rice.edu...

Blacks are inferior so there for they dont reserve any rights under the constitution, even if they are righly American born. This was the argument Davis made towards Lincoln and it was because of this reasoning that the Southern states wanted to split. White Southerns at the time were making a killing off the backs of enslaved hard working americans for free, and their greed got so far to them that they were prepared to break away from the Union to maintain that benefit. This history is nothing to be proud of and sugarcoating it will not make you look any better in my opinion. Had the dixie democrats won that year through the same constitutional means as Lincoln did, and slavery kept as is, there would not have been a civil war.

So, for you play the civil war as some 'federal oppression over the freedom of southerns' is absolutely garabage because it was the exact opposite to what Southerns at the time were advocated.

Were the Northerns innocent in all this? No, they benefitted millions from the backs of enslaved americans just like the southern slave holders. It benefitted everybody and all sides are responsible for what had happened. But then again it was through the North that the movement for ending slavery began... and then followed on segregation.

Now, as for the movement away from the Union again, its something we have been hearing for years now and it recently increased because a liberal was voted in as president (shocking). Its interesting that whenever a fair election process goes against what southern conservatives want, they want to pack their bags and insist the constitution is in danger (and ofcourse nothing ever happens). Just another sound of a broken record in my opinion.

Heard it all before.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Let's really think through some of the ideas of seceding and stop paying taxes to the federal government.

Most states get more federal funding back than thy pay to the government in taxes. Funny that someone posted the link about Virginia saying no to the HC mandate...you know who gets the most funding per capita??? You guessed it...Virginia.

So what happens when the states stop paying taxes and say they are seceding??? Well of course all federal funding will cease to that state.

This is a very very short list of progams that will stop...Medicare, Social Security payments, welfare, food stamps, education funding, transportation funding, FDIC, mortgage backing, money circulation, farm subsidies...I'm sure there are thousands of more...this is just off the top of my head.

Medicare, social security, welfare, food stamps: That state is going to have a lot of very poor, hungry and sick people. Any plans on dealing with that?

Education funding: Teachers aren't going to work for free...colleges will most likely shut down too.

FDIC: Bank runs like you've never seen before. Once the FDIC is no longer backing deposits...are you going to leave your money there?

Mortgage Backing: Freddie and Fannie won't be backing any more loans...credit will all but stop in that state.

Money Circulation: After awhile with no fresh money coming from the Fed...money is going to be short. That is if money will even be considered worth anything since they are United States notes...not individual state notes. So what will the state do for currency??? Print it's own?

Will the federal government allow transportation in and out of the state that does this? How long will food supplies last without food coming in from other states?

This isn't the 1800's...people are no longer self sufficient. Do you think people are just going to go about normal daily activities? Go to work? Go to school? I don't think so...I would expect a mass exodus out of that state once this is done.


I'm sorry to rain on everyones parade here...but I like to be realistic about things. I just provided a small list of things that I see as a realistic problem with what is being proposed here...and I'm sure there are many many more.

_____________________________________________________________

Dude, try to think outside the collective. You're not raining on anyone's parade here.

The REAL "reality" here is is that none of these dependency-like federal "necessities" you cite as examples are going to mean S&*$ with the abject currency devaluation that has been ongoing. In the first place, it's fiat money anyway backed by nothing more than empty promises from a bunch of exsanguinating parasites like Ben "Helicopter" Bernanke. Why do we need the FDIC? To "insure" a bunch of Zimbabwe notes that soon won't even be worth the wheel barrel you use the carry them in? IT DOESN'T MATTER!

The mass exodus of clones and sheeple out of the seceeding state would solve at least some of the problems you go on to cite with poor, sick and hungry, etc. You are right that this isn't the 1800s anymore. The American spirit and pride have long since been on life support.

Would it be easy? Of course not. But like it or not America as it once was is gone. And the current model of service-based consumerism is unsustainable as well. You now have almost two generations of people who are largely apathetic milk cows more concerned with "ballon boys," "runaway brides," and "dancing Stars" than they are with a manufacturing base, a unique and sovereign culture/language, etc. People have been grossly acquiescent in terms of trade, invasion en mass i.e., immigration, "multiculturalism" (i.e., diminution of identity), and laissez-faire globalist economic policy.

I would rather die free in a day than live the next 50 yrs as a debt slave ward of an Orwellian police state.

3%

Originally posted by m khan
In the first place our taxes don't even go to the government. Our national debt is so great that the taxes all go to interest on the debt

Oh I agree, the same debt contributed in part by the decisions of Southern presidents and Southern representitives.

It is a shame all our taxes are used towards our debt, but with all the talk about paying off the debt, where exactly should we pay it off?

I live in one of the states and areas of the country that is/are claiming Sovereignty.
I wonder why Oregon, part of the Pacific Northwest(WA, ID, CA(northern), Alaska and even closeby Montana is) isn't on the list, seems like they would be.

Edit: One website claims that Washington State was taken off the list due to not enough votes for it to pass and needs to be brough up again to the state Gov.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by dreamingawake]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Couldn't agree more, I think many people have a fanciful idea of what would happen if a state seceded, like you said its not the 1800s.

I'm just going to leave this sophomoric article about taxes and the ineptitude of some of the founding fathers here. Second line.

www.cracked.com...

reply to post by Torgo


Did you read the comments at the bottom?

The article is so wrong in its breakdown it is kind of funny, on the ignorance level.

One of the commenters did a good breakdown, I got more from the comments than the article.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
I wonder if people form independent groups to resist the states. Since the states also subjugate their people as well with compulsion to unconstitutional state laws. Not always by legislation of federal edicts but state laws like indoor smoking bans, license laws for substance fishing/hunting. State and local taxes on income that are payroll deducted that are not equally distributed but are progress tables like the IRS's.

en.wikipedia.org...

Kinda like this during the civil war?

Contrary to politcally correct opinion, which was taught when I was taught American History as early as the fifth grade, the Civil War was NOT about slavery, but about State's Rights. Specifically the 9th and 10th amendments.
Let it be clearly understood that I do not advocate a return to slavery, but I believe EVERY amendment to the Constitution after the bill of rights needs to be carefully reevaluated. Of course, we do not want to repeal the 13th amendment, but every other amendment should be looked at closely.
Since Congress won't do it, it might reqire a secession movement to get congress of their collective A$$es and do what needs to be done.
And remember, the National Guard is part of the state militia, so each state has it's own army, which happens to be under the control of the Governor of each state.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Just where do you think all this "Federal Funding" comes from in the first place? Maybe they have trees in D.C. that grow it for leaves? Possibly its because the bureau of Printing and Engraving printing presses are in D.C.?

Exactly how long do you think it would take for the so called "Federal Funding" to dry up if the people and the states told the Feds to take a walk and quit sending their hard earned money to D.C?

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
Contrary to politcally correct opinion, which was taught when I was taught American History as early as the fifth grade, the Civil War was NOT about slavery, but about State's Rights. Specifically the 9th and 10th amendments.

Abraham Lincoln began office on March 4th, 1861. A month afterwards the South declared it wanted to break away. It was no coincidence that Lincoln had been advocating the end of slavery, and a month after he assumes office, all of a sudden the southern states want to succeed.

The Southern states were steadfast against abolishing slavery because they benefitted greately from it. In their eyes, the Federal governments was meddling in their affairs over enslaving other americans. They saw slavery as a states issue when it was far from it. Obviously though conservatives and southerners alike continue to sugarcoat this black history behind the confederacy. Even Jefferson Davis himself was clear over the war regarding slavery.

In the one month between Lincoln taking office for the first time and the attack in South Carolina, what did Lincoln change of the previous Democratic president, Buchanan? Let me know what Lincoln exactly did in March of 1860 that had nothing to do with slavery that pushed the South. Because following his campaign win, his inaugeration speech which involved ending slavery, much to our surprise, the southern states wanted independence. So this excuse to sugarcoat the confederacy appears to me not to fly with history. Its important to note that during the Democratic convention in Charlston of 1860, Southern Democrats, staunch adovcates of keeping slavery as is, walked out over a despute. This group was lead by William Lowndes Yancey would go on to be one of the major figures for Southern independence.

The confederacy leaving had mostly to do with slavery because they felt they needed to dictate the issue to themselves, even though it was a human right issue.

Let it be clearly understood that I do not advocate a return to slavery,

Davis, Yancey and many southerns who lead Southern independence were staunch supporters of slavery. The vast majority of pro-successionist white southerners at the time were against abolishing slavery. You are defending and justifying these individuals and their actions even though its blatantly obvious where they stood on the issue at the time.

Thankfully though,the majority consensus in this country, and to an extent globally, was that the confederacy at the time wanted independence because of their pro-slavery laws. The south can continue to have their little war games, some Southerners can continue to sugarcoat the reasons behind the confederacy, but the rest of us will continue to see the Confederacy for what it was during the time.

Nobody here can honestly tell me that had the confederacy gained independence, that slavery would have abolished the next few years after.

[edit on 17-3-2010 by Southern Guardian]

Sounds good to me, everyone that doesn't like the United States can go to the south. Then we pull out all of our military and government assets out of the south. They can become their own country, or countries, and we can have a standing order that anyone coming north from the new southern border must be shot on site.

Then, we just sign a trade embargo with every other country, against the south, denying them any access to trade, and watch them all starve to death.



[edit on 3/17/2010 by whatukno]

It looks like there are several Obama inspired opportunities for the states that have claimed to stand up for the 10th amendment to actually do so. If they can't live up to it, they don't really mean it. The states have been in bed with the feds for quite a long time.

The biggest problem with these state right movements is that the state government doers not represent the wishes of much of its population. For example the majority of the population want health care reform, yet the wealthy conservative state government officials do not. As such programs that benefit and strengthen our country at the expense of private business profits goes against their core beliefs. So, they will scream state rights in having to support such a program despite the negative affect of denying health care to those in need.

Of course, they will continue to rally against other federal regulations such as minimum wage, work safety and other labor laws while telling their followers of what a wonderful place the country was before such regulations were in place. Hoping that they don't do their own research to discover the deplorable conditions and poverty most people suffered through during that time.

So, the south is still fighting the age old battle of returning to a land where the elite lived lavishly and the poor suffered immensely. A place where the poor can be treated like trash and forced to work as indentured servants where they always owe the company more than they earn. A place where equal rights can be ignored due to a weak federal government. A place where the white male can feel empowered.

So, despite being a native Texan, I won't be waving my little rebel flag nor will I be voting for the state right folks like Rick Perry. I know our countries history and dread the day we ever return to what it once was.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Bunch of hypocritical BS. I find it curious that when Bush trampled all over the Constitution, literally calling it "a Goddamned piece of paper" and creating the Patriot Act, rendition and any number of direct assaults on the Constitution (not to mention launching TARP with no strings just before he left), that these successionists did not seem to care at all.

But now that a black man holds the office all these people are running around scared and pretending to be all furious about the erosion of our rights.

As usual with this group of people, the reality is opposite of what they scream about. Open your eyes and think critically; it is embarrassing and disconcerting to watch such ignorance. This is the sort of ignorance and extremism that genuinely allows REAL fascism to take root (under the guise of an evangelical banner).