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.


Dear Federal Government....Go To Hell

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:12 PM
This was tweeted from the @RonPaul_2012 twitter account. I did a search of the site and did not find it posted here. Some of you may have read this already but maybe not, so I wanted to share it with everyone.

This is from a seech given at a Freedom rally it is a part of a letter written to well the Federal Government

Start talking 10th Amendment, state sovereignty or — heaven forbid — nullification, and you will immediately find yourself branded as an extremist, a nut job, a radical and out of the mainstream. There’s even a supposedly nasty term for those of us who would dare advance such nutty principles: “Tenther.”

Well, apparently, the American majority is just plain nutty.

A Rasmussen poll released last Friday tells us that “54 percent of Likely U.S. Voters believe that states should have the right to opt out of federal programs they don’t agree with.” In other words, more than half of Americans now embrace the Constitutional concept of State sovereignty.

More telling than this small majority in support of such crazy ideas is the much smaller minority of people opposed to them. Only 31 percent of those polled disagreed and said States should not enjoy the ability to opt out.

Think about that for a moment, because it is significant. Less than one-third of the country opposes our base principle that each State can and should have a unique approach to handling various political issues

Federalism Rules!

The Founders told us that such a system was not only a good idea, but also in line with the Constitution. They knew that one-size-fits-all solutions would lead to pretty much what we have today: a crumbling economy, liberty eroded and continual violations of the rules given to government.

Today, people everywhere are beginning to recognize a simple truth: What’s right for California is likely not right for Washington State, and what’s right for Idaho is likely not right for Alabama, and so on.

In fact, such a decentralized system (the system the Founders gave us in the Constitution) is the only kind in which people in a huge country like ours — with widely varying political, economic and religious beliefs — can all live peacefully together under a large defense umbrella.

John Adams famously told us that the real American Revolution was not the war for independence. He said:

The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.

Happening Right Now

Even more exciting than this poll is the fact that States around the country are putting this idea into practice.

In 1996, when my home state of California decided to opt out of Federal drug laws by allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes, it was going it alone. But, soon other States recognized not only their own ability, but the possible benefit of opting out of this particular Federal program. Today, 15 States have done so, and they are increasingly getting away with it.

A few years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union championed State-level opposition to the REAL ID Act of 2005, which required States to follow Federal guidelines in issuing driver’s licenses. Since then, more than half the States have enacted legislation against participation, and all applied for or received extensions by the 2008 deadline.

Here we are six years later and it’s still not fully implemented, because States just won’t do it.

States opting out of Federal programs (at the Tenth Amendment Center, we refer to it as “nullification“) can be a pretty effective strategy. It’s far more effective than “voting the bums out” or writing a letter to Federal politicians, in my opinion.

It is kind of long but I think it is well worth the read. It really does say a lot, at least I think so. What does everybody else think? Here is the link

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:17 PM
If this was twitter, and your subject was a tweet...


posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Skate
If this was twitter, and your subject was a tweet...


hahahahaha! Nice! I am actually a little tempted to tweet it now that you say something!

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 06:56 PM
Hell is a fictionary place, how can the federal government go to a place that doesn't exist?

At least give the government an achievable goal.....
edit on 4-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:02 PM
Yes, federalism is the single worst thing about government. And yes, federalism is always attempted and enforced, everywhere, for the simple reason that psychopaths relentlessly crave centralised, total control.

Federalism exists purely as a benefit to rulers. It offers no benefit whatsoever to the ruled.

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:48 PM
I mostly agree with petrus4 on the nature of federalism. You look at almost every single federal agency and policy, really analyze them on bureaucratic and economic level and you begin to realize how out of whack they are with reality. Not only do they waste billions of dollars without even batting an eye, they almost always fail to efficiently serve the purpose they were intended for. I'm not saying this applies to every federal agency or program, only to most of them. And I think petrus4 touched pretty heavily on the main reason why they are so irrational and ineffective -- if they aren't there to service the egos of control freaks, then they inevitably get hijacked by them and do just that.

But, of course, when it comes to states, they're not all that much better, at least when it comes to finances. So many states and municipalities are headed towards default and bankruptcy because they are spending and borrowing beyond their means and resources. This, I think, has a lot to do with political culture and the mindset of the voting public. Most time, people see the exceptional candidate as the one who can offer them more or who has given them more in terms of public programs, infrastructure projects, and/or benefits -- all of which cost money -- all of which cost taxpayer money. However, if the politicians suggest raising taxes then they're often not elected or re-elected.

The problem is you can't have your cake and eat it, too. People need to realize that its their money that's paying for all this junk and they need to ask themselves if we really need all of this stuff the local and state governments and their elected leaders would like to provide, and if so, are we willing to raise our taxes, and if that's so (and I really hope it isn't), then are we willing to sacrifice many private sector jobs, since higher taxes are the number one govt-related deterrent to businesses.

We Americans need to have this kind of dialogue. Otherwise, we're stuck in a loop that undoubtedly leads to bottom-up economic disaster -- which is really bad when you consider that fact that we're already up to our necks in a top-down economic disaster.
edit on 5-9-2011 by soma100 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-9-2011 by soma100 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:14 AM
reply to post by soma100

Thanks, soma.

The single main reason why I believe that federalism can't work, is because when problems happen, if a government presides over a large area, then that means that 95%+ of the time, it's going to happen somewhere a long way away from the government.

That means that the government can't hope to keep an eye on everything that happens. It also means that when government does find out about problems, it will not only typically arrive on the scene late, but it will also usually attempt to solve the problem in an ineffective or flawed way; because the fact that it does not exist locally, typically means that it doesn't have sufficient understanding of the problem in order to be able to solve it effectively.

I believe that individual townships should be governed by a system similar to this. I might be accused of Communism here, but from what that article says, for those people that system actually worked, and worked well.

The point is making government not only small, but most importantly *local.* That way it is truly representative, and can respond to local problems in the most effective way possible. Federalism and globalism undermine that.

top topics


log in