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.


Nullify Now! US tyranny defense.

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Really, can you show us some examples, now, not in the past.

As for the LEO's going after things that are not truly lawful, we are working on removing those problems as well. Not just the federal government's draconian, but all of the unlawful legislation.

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:30 PM

Originally posted by GhostLancer

HEALTHCARE: Hey, if you already have healthcare, this new law shouldn't affect you. In fact, from what I've read and heard, YOU are only affected if you do not ALREADY have healthcare... mainly? Like, if you have no healthcare plan, then you are required to get one. -And, if you cannot afford such a plan, then you are carried by the government? Is that not so? Which means... that those who could not afford healthcare are now COVERED by the program?

I'll pass, thanks. I don't want ANY of that, regardless of what the government tries to railroad me into.

Sure, if you are happy with your personal healthcare, and can pay CASH, then do so.

The new legislation does not permit that. You MUST divert funds into the coffers of the insurance ponzi scheme, OR pay the governmentally mandated consequences. Those ponzi schemes I mention will, evidently, include a government run ponzi scheme. Again, no thanks.

This law should really only affect those who HAVE NOTHING. Shout your arguments at a kid who has been injured and can't pay for his arm to be set. Parents KNOW that wounded kids are the ***WORST*** pain imaginable Fight healthcare reform and explain to those hurt kids why they can't get treatment.

Every time someone wants to trample our rights, it's always "for the children".


I's for the insurance companies. They could give a rat's ass if we ate our children.

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:54 PM

Originally posted by whatukno

No, if they don't vote then they are the "party slut" if they do vote, they have given expressed consent, if the guy you vote for does not win, it gives you carte blanche to disapprove of everything that the person who won does. Their opinion matters more than the non voter who could care less, because they actually cared enough to try and choose a person they believe to be a good candidate.

I realize I can be incredibly dense some times, but I think I'm still failing to see your point. If they vote, then they are giving express consent to be governed by whoever wins, and if they DON'T vote, they are giving implied consent to be governed by whoever wins. The commonality in both cases is that, whatever they do, they WILL consent to be governed by whoever wins. Hence my view that it is a catch-22. There is no option to refuse consent in your worldview, no matter what you do.

Going back to your party girl analogy, withholding express consent leaves no other option than to assume implied consent, so the passed out drunk chick is a "slut: under those circumstances just as much as the other one. I can't see it that way myself, and I don't believe you really do, either. What I haven't grasped yet is what you would consider to be refusal of consent.

OP says that nullification is a way of registering refusal of consent, but you haven't presented your mechanism for that.

Now, we have our OP friend who instead wants to destroy the union completely, he wants juries all over the nation to start acquitting people by using jury nullification in every case, thereby destroying the judicial branch of our government, he also wants to destroy the legislative branch of our government by stripping them of the powers granted to them under the Constitution by Article I Section 8. Leaving only the executive branch left. Therefore, he wants a dictatorship.

Well now, I haven't seen that at all. What you say there appears to me to be a hyperbolic over-reaching of his intent, an argumentum ad abursium.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:37 AM

Originally posted by mryanbrown
reply to post by IAMIAM

It's illegal to live off the land.

Whoa there!

I generally agree with all of your posts, but this one jerked me up short. How is it illegal to live off the land? Which law makes that illegal? This is the first I've heard of it. It's never stopped me before, and I can't fathom a reason it would stop me in the future, but it's always nice to know whose line I'm crossing!

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:59 AM
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Your reply gave rise to a new thought, for me. Our founding fathers left England in order to have Freedom of Religion.

Could it be that a new nation will be formed somewhere in order to have Freedom of Healthcare? Right now, today, that sounds sort of outlandish. But, if it were to happen, and then the history written by the victors, Freedom of Healthcare might really be substantial in the annals of this newfound nation.

I am not for a healthcare system being forced down anyone's throat. And really, the example you provided is not the reality for MOST AMERICANS. Most Americans do not have friends who are doctors and nurses. Most Americans work more than they should, make less than they're worth, and have little to no savings. A car breaking-down is a *MAJOR EVENT* let alone a heart or lung or liver or kidney "breaking-down."

If you do have friends who are doctors and nurses, who would glady cure you of all your diseases (or whatever), really, in a non-sarcastic way: "GOOD FOR *YOU.*" But what you fail to see is that 99% of Americans suffering through this bad economy brought upon by greedy, unregulated bankers, don't happen to know nurses and doctors.

The healthcare LAW is not a 100% solution. It was the first BABY STEP in the right direction. Things, as they were, were untolerable. In a country where people have the Freedom to earn 100 million dollars (or more, especially if you're a BANKER even if you FAIL), it is *wrong* in my humble (perhaps overly humanistic) opinion for people to starve and have no healthcare.

What we have here is an aristocracy. The middle class is being destroyed. The POOR have little/no healthcare. The healthcare law is trying to change that. I don't mind paying $100 or even $200 a year to make sure that a poor person gets basic healthcare. Heck, even a thousand. We've been raised and conditioned into a "it's all about MEEEEEE" state. We're all humans. We're all in this together. Chipping in a bit more money to ensure that we're not a shameful country isn't a high price to pay. IMHO.

edit on 15-9-2010 by GhostLancer because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:41 AM
reply to post by GhostLancer

Forgive me for sliding in here. I haven't kept up with all of your discussion to this point, but believe I can see into some of your thinking. To whit, I'd like to include my own humble thoughts...

It appears that the discussion has turned to a philosophical and emotive discussion about the healthcare issue. As I glance up to the thread's title, I see Nullification and Tyranny.

While I'm certain you will have exhaustive reasons why healthcare is moral, important, progressing in the right direction, I believe you're missing a key and fundamental element to this thread's gist.

Of course, that would be authority. Authority / Legitimacy / Lawful Foundation for the federal system to impose anything to the several states (to return the principle to once beyond the implications of healthcare).

Further, your very emotional and idealistic expressions will fail to address the possibility opened by Nullification. Nullification would be where a group of citizens passionately disagree with you so much so, they just refuse to give their consent.

Now, there are ways in the past that have worked to some degree by idealistic proponents of some law, principle or religion to use FORCE to retain consent. Among them, I can think of Germans in the '30s, some fellas fond of scarlet in Rus in the '20s, followers of a titan of a man: Tito, and others.

The quandary you must face is not the emotional pleas, moral sales, but rather- what will you do when a group of people flat refuse to extend consent and Nullify? Re-education? Forced labor to fund these programs? Emigration/Deportation? Euthanasia?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:50 AM
reply to post by andrewh7

He made the point, and I'll whole heartedly agree with him.

If you lobby, or file suit and it's deemed through the courts to be unconstitutional. Was it ever constitutional to begin with?

The short answer is, no. And as it is not, you were never obligated to uphold it. The issue is, knowing when to pick your battles in regards to resisting unconstitutional legislation. Because in the end, should society still uphold it to be constitutional. Not constitutional in nature, just constitutional in process. You still broke the law as is. There is a massive difference between the two.

The latter is still unconstitutional, just believed to be constitutional.

I suggest you read Article 61 of the Magna Carta (which was eventually removed). It discusses lawful rebellion, rebellion through non-violent means. Which is exactly what is being suggested and discussed here. It's not fascism, merely asserting our natural rights through a constitutionally protected process.

These means exist for a reason, they were just hidden from you. There are ways to take back our government, using the basis of law their system is derived from.

Saying, "that's fascist" without actually rebutting the points in an intelligible way is ignorant. You have your right to disagree, but if you believe so strongly that you are correct. Then you should be able to properly assert your stance on the matter.

@nenothtu, there is no direct law which states you may not live off of the land. There are indirect laws.

You need a...

Fishing license.
Hunting license.
Gathering permit beyond a minimal amount. (This is for herbs, vegetables, fruit)

Get caught leaving man made rubbish on the lands or relieving yourself? Indecent exposure...

The list goes on and on. You may make use of public lands, for a brief period. Not live off of it. And just because they don't arrest or prosecute everyone, doesn't mean they can't. It's a false sense of security.


Not everyone left for freedom of religion. The majority who came here for that reason were mostly Quakers. The non-Catholics and non-Protestants were still Christian, so they were still well respected within the religious communities. They just chose to honor freedom of religion, not seek it.

edit on 15-9-2010 by mryanbrown because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:51 AM
reply to post by GhostLancer

Chipping in just a little bit more huh? Well, the last year I was working full time above board, I was bringing in an equivalent, with benefits/retirement, about 85k-90k. My take home for my labor was about 40% of that after figuring in federal, state, local income taxes, ss tax, medicare tax, unemployment tax.

NOW, with that 40% I have to pay for, sales, property, licensing, registration, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.

NO, the GOVERNMENT is wiping out the middle class, not anything else.

Make sure you have the eye on the right ball.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:56 AM
reply to post by sakokrap

Thanks for attempting to get the thread back on track.

I should never have addressed any of the emotional excuses or rhetoric.

I made a mistake even addressing these issues, I think I was distracted by a standard Cloward and Piven maneuver by one of the members.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 06:32 AM
reply to post by Tribble

It is not the vote that counts, it is who counts the votes.

Your vote, my vote, the person who is reading this, their vote.....................does not matter.

Voting in this country is a sham.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:47 AM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

Yes, I remember Florida!! BIG Joke-
However, if the legalization of pot doesn't pass here in Cali, I will have to move to higher ground.
I am skilled up to CEO, there is nothing as far as a decent job to be had.

So what do you think? Montana or Alaska?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:01 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

That is why I have joined with others on this component.
Our votes really no longer matter. This year has to be the first that I can remember that the entrenched Washington insiders are getting the boot.

And what do we hear from the Democrat side, them tearing down the Tea Party, even though they are booting the incumbents.

I do not get them.

Anyway, Peace.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:51 PM
Well, this is my first reply, been lurkin for a while and just couldn't ever make it past the first page of a thread because of the classic faceless internet arguments. I finally got around to deciding to make my own website, I realized instead of a database I just needed to put it all together into one gigantic epic thread that is like climbing a pyramid step by step to enlightment of just about everything. So here I am posting a reply so I can create a thread on ATS. I like to think of it as the border pieces of the puzzle, but it's generally a slow climb that takes several years. I've always figured I could literally change someone's entire universal view with 45 minutes of them not asking for "credible" references or just putting all of my knowledge I've accumulated, quite quickly, straight into their brains. To have read and watched what I have, you would have to at the very least question how much the elite power structure has purposely destroyed and enslaved us since before recorded history; that amount of sadistic, egotistic, and sociopathic devilry is not an accident when they continue to get richer (paradoxically since they already own it all) and we continue to become more destitute and hopeless. The vast majority would scoff at us in America being “destitute and hopeless”, but the Great Depression is a good indicator of how wobbly our economic legs can become and anyone in a primarily minority neighborhood or the inner-city will attest to d & h. Especially when these downturns are planned and the elite, not so paradoxically, do nothing but become richer, bigger, and more centralized (It's not an oligopoly when the few have a very incestuous relationship and merely work together as controlled choices, so it's more just a cabalopoly). The idea of a secret society of men purposely ruining the world for their own gain is not some paranoid fantasy, as Kennedy's Secret Society speech should prove well. Most won't believe it, but that's only because they haven't done any objective research because there is plenty of public proof. Therefore, that makes all of the anti-OP people's points moot because they start with the assumption that we live in a Constitutional Representative Republic. A Republic puts the whole before the one, not the few before the rest.

So this leads us to this comment(first reply, don't know how to do the quote boxes), “Exactly, the people are passing constitutional laws through their representatives in congress. Any of the examples you've given are constitutional because of the 9th amendment. The constitution grants rights not in the constitution to the people, who are represented by congress. Lincoln said it best, “Government of the people, for the people, by the people.” If you have a problem with government you have a problem with the people. To break the law is not ok, abide by the law, even if you disagree with it but work to change it, always.” So you're telling me that if the Feds fine you several thousand dollars for having a garage sale or babysitting and we find that ridiculous, that we have a problem with the people? All of these counter points are moot when you realize that all of the branches of government are already bought and paid for and that this is a government of the richest, for the richest, by the richest. So we have a power structure where the average citizen is despised and those like Ron Paul are called “Kooks” by their own party. The video of DeMint talking about 90% of bills being passed with unanimous consent without reading it, merely knowing the name and possibly the (very-biased) CBO score. As they're leaving for vacation they tend to get calls from their aids asking them if they want to vote unanimous consent with the bill. If they don't, then the bill (in this age of computers?) must be sent to them and they then constantly receive complaints about others needing to see it.

Let's use Cap and Trade as an example, the majority of people are not only against it, but the majority of people think that Global Warming is a hoax and the ClimateGate e-mails proved that. So instead of looking into GW being a hoax, the MSM and Congress are more concerned about who hacked the emails. Instead of hitting Al Gore with numerous criminal charges, they think they might take C&T out of a new energy bill that will still hurt us greatly. Basically everything is voted on party lines and that's hilarious when you realize that there is only one party. Campaign contributions and lobbyist support keeps the average person from being able to have any effect on our government and with the same-ol-same-ol always running for congress we never receive a real choice (for God's sake, they continue to elect Pelosi). Ron Paul received more online contributions than anyone else, when Obama was supposed to be the 21st cent. technology champ. He would then purposely not be given coverage by the MSM and he would be mocked by his own party when he has created one of the largest grass roots political movements we have today. Luckily, this year we have new blood beating out incumbents in the primary (including Ron's son), whoowhee.

IAMIAM's comment hit the head on the nail and is why I used to like reading comments. We are definitely sovereign individuals who have God-given inalienable rights that absolutely do not need to be written down. But now, we have two parties that switch control every few years because one screws up everything, so we give the other a chance, after they screw up we give the other a chance, after they screw up we give the other a chance, etc. The one in power just blames the one beforehand and if they can't get unpopular legislation passed they blame it on the other team getting in the way. Money is truly at the root of all of this, it's the only God these elitists know. We have the Federal Reserve giving giant loans to other countries and telling our congressmen that they don't know who it went to. We have too-big-to-fail banks failing because of their own greed and instead of dismantling them, they use their government money to buy up failing companies as to become even larger as they don't loan the money. The bailouts and such were hugely unpopular with America, but they were passed anyway and we now officially have proof that they did nothing. Sure sounds like of the richest, for the richest, by the richest.

“...Judicial Branch of the government to decide whether or not a law is constitutional or not. That's why they have their own branch of government. Checks and balances and what not. Not your fascist idea of government by the most angry. No to say that you aren't free to get your endisnighe panties in a wad and rant. Surely you can, I am just saying you have covered this subject already.” The Judicial Branch, you mean the same one that used to have black men hanged for crimes they clearly didn't commit? You mean the JB that is so impartial that all citizens still do not have equal rights? Let's take gay marriage as an issue; Christian marriage is a slap in the face to separation of Church and State, but that's never brought up. This only happened because the leaders at the time had no option, since Christianity was(is) very fiery and very elitist. So now homosexuals can't be married because that would offend Jesus, the one who loved everyone and saw everyone as equal to him. So instead of our JB changing marriage to some kind of civil partnership, we have the argument that we must protect the “sanctity” of marriage. So much sanctity that guys make the joke that if they're stupid enough to want to get married, then let them. Then we get the people in California who overturned the gay marriage through their referendum or whatever, this is called majority tyranny and is exactly why we don't live in a democratic society. If all of those people thought that legal Mexicans should be shipped to another state, then shouldn't I have a problem with the People. Doesn't our JB have the duty to stand up against those who wish to make others unequal?

“They can reverse their decision. See, if you knew anything on how this government works you would know that the legislative branch passes legislation, the potus signs it into law, and if that law is not constitutional the SCOTUS rejects that law. Just because YOU don't like a law, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.” So let's say Hitler were to get all of his friends elected to congress, he was potus, and he puts all of his people in the SCOTUS. Then he passes a bill to kill all jews, that is passed by all and if anyone asks how it's constitutional, all Hitler has to say is that it's very clearly interstate commerce and that the Feds have the power to Make all Laws. So this is constitutional, even though 97% of people are against it, and we as a people can't do anything about it because we don't have the money and Hitler's new PATRIOT act states that all who oppose his jew law is an enemy of the state and a domestic terrorist. So let's get away from the argument over the definition of constitutional and start asking the real question that the OP is addressing: if we as a people have no power to affect congress' decisions to purposely ruin this country, what is it that we can do? Having the States take back their constitutionally given powers and flip the Feds the biggest bird they can build. The Healthcare Bill summer town hall meetings was a great show of how we could finally force integrity and responsibility upon our representatives. The HC Bill is also a representation of how the majority of America can be against something, but the majority party passes it anyways using questionable tactics (be it giving extra money to certain states or reconciliation).

“Somehow you seem to think that that consent must be constant, which isn't true, that consent is a time thing, it lasts the term of the person elected, then the people can either send that same person back or elect someone new.” No we can't, there generally is no one new and even they are mostly bought and paid for. “If you want to fight against what you feel are unjust laws that you feel are unconstitutional, then my suggestion is that you go to law school, become a lawyer, and take up cases in the supreme court.” He already explained the elite clique that is law school and any deviation from that would likely lead to licenses being revoked or smear campaigns at the least.

You repliers were the only ones hating and using some seriously sad fallacies (you're rehashin bro, that brings your credibility down because I said so). If our country we're to continue to be ran in the same manner it's being run, then we most definitely would end up as true slaves (we are already globally enslaved, just not total enslavement, more like feudalistically enslaved). Luckily, the elite are doomed because of people like me and the OP who realize the problems with our system and want to fix them instead of justify them. We have already won and the elite are in the death throws of their death throws and more State power will put that final nail in the coffin. Thank you OP, people like you are why ATS still has active and learned members. Those repliers who support the FEDs so whole heartedly, you are worse than paid PsyOps because you actually believe the crap you are spewing and you are an impediment to mankind and its evolution, so please get out of the way. You are also why so many people lurk on ATS instead of join it. So you, the ACLU, the SPLC, and probably now Mike Castle can go complain about how we true patriots are just racists who only deal in anger and hatred; we'll be the busy ones trying to keep the country from collapsing.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by SincerelySarcastic

Thanks for the comment.

Just got my first site up today, at least the temp one. Working on one from scratch. Will be using that initial one to create several sites. All of them dealing with the rule of LAW. The TRUE law. Not all the crap we have to deal with now.

The golden rule will lead us to the golden path. If not, we all know where we will end.

God Bless and Peace.

new topics

top topics

<< 7  8  9   >>

log in