OT: Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state
f. barnes
Chelsea shilling
July 20, 2009
Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska's
sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36
other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing
resistance to the federal government.
Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska
governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state
Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center
report. The resolution "claims sovereignty for the state under the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
by the Constitution of the United States."
Alaska's resolution states:
Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims
sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution
of the United States.
Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and
Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective
immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
constitutionally delegated powers.
While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their
legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee
Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed
their states' sovereignty resolutions.
The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."
Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered
are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, West Virginia,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama,
Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia,
Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South
Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Great.
Those nasty feds can now remove, from all these sovereign states:
-- federal highway money
-- federal Medicare and medicaid money
-- those intrusive federal military installations and their huge
payrolls
-- federal air traffic controllers (after all, the people in these
states are smart enough to take off and land without directions)
Gunner Asch
<theprop...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."
>>
>> Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered
>> are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, West Virginia,
>> North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama,
>> Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia,
>> Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South
>> Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
>> Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.
>
>Great.
>
>Those nasty feds can now remove, from all these sovereign states:
>-- federal highway money
>-- federal Medicare and medicaid money
>-- those intrusive federal military installations and their huge
>payrolls
>-- federal air traffic controllers (after all, the people in these
>states are smart enough to take off and land without directions)
Good. It will be far cheaper for the states to administer those needs
than it will for the Feds to do it..and it wont come with a skien of
Strings Attached.
Great Start!!
"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno
SaPeIsMa
"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <theprop...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
news:5e7b26ec-05eb-4e2e...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 21, 3:49 am, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104524
>
> Chelsea shilling
> July 20, 2009
>
> Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska's
> other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing
> resistance to the federal government.
>
> Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska
> governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state
> Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center
> report. The resolution "claims sovereignty for the state under the
> Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
> powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
> by the Constitution of the United States."
>
> Alaska's resolution states:
>
> Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims
> sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the
> Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
> enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution
> of the United States.
> Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and
> Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective
> immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
> constitutionally delegated powers.
>
> Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana � have had both houses of their
> legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee
> Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed
> their states' sovereignty resolutions.
>
> The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."
>
> Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered
> are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, West Virginia,
> North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama,
> Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia,
> Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South
> Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
> Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.
# Great.
#
# Those nasty feds can now remove, from all these sovereign states:
# -- federal highway money
# -- federal Medicare and medicaid money
# -- those intrusive federal military installations and their huge
# payrolls
# -- federal air traffic controllers (after all, the people in these
# states are smart enough to take off and land without directions)
So you're saying that the Fed will withhold funds for things under their
jurisdiction to blackmail to the individual states to accept the Feds doing
things that they aren't supposed to do ?
And you imagine that the Court fight that will follow is winnable by them ?
Or that an Administration that does that will survive the next election ?
And by the way, if the Fed do the above, they TACITLY ADMIT that such are
beyond their authority.
Which means that the states can get a court order for them to cease and
desist ALL such activities.
The Feds have painted themselves in a corner on this one,
hal
wrote:
>From my perspective a mighty "big" corner. None of the afore
>mentioned items are "Laws", simply reallocated money. There is no
>such thing as "Federal Money", just monies that the Federal government
>has extorted from the residents of states then reallocated back down.
>These States are also sending a pretty clear message their
>Congress-Critters from their State Legislatures as to what they should
>consider when voting for things that have impact on the States
>sovereignty.
Most of the states considering this are rural states who collect a
disproportionate share of tax money from the federal government.
Sid9
"f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:30f126c3-49cc-4ae2...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
"...one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for
all...."
Don�t you under stand the "one nation, indivisible" part of
this?
Gunner Asch
On nation, composed of 50 individual states (and a handful of
territories etc).
Or do you think each state should simply give up its own internal
politics and become One with the Feds????
The Founders had far far different ideas than that.
Gunner
Sid9
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
news:7rmb655gpkilb994c...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:38:59 -0400, "Sid9"
> <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>>news:30f126c3-49cc-4ae2...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104524
>>>
>>>
>>> Chelsea shilling
>>> July 20, 2009
>>>
>>> Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring
>>> Alaska's
>>> sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
>>> South
>>> Dakota,
>>> Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana - have had both houses of
The Civil War settled the issue.
"...one nation indivisible..."
SaPeIsMa
"hal" wrote in message news:o2eb655pn65jumv63...@4ax.com...
And naturally you can back that up with DATA....
ka2...@bellsouth.net
"Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:h44kaf$p78$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:30f126c3-49cc-4ae2...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104524
>>
>>
>> Chelsea shilling
>> July 20, 2009
>>
>> Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska's
>> other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing
>> resistance to the federal government.
>>
>> Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska
>> governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state
>> Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center
>> report. The resolution "claims sovereignty for the state under the
>> Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
>> powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
>> by the Constitution of the United States."
>>
>> Alaska's resolution states:
>>
>> Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims
>> sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the
>> Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
>> enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution
>> of the United States.
>> Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and
>> Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective
>> immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
>> constitutionally delegated powers.
>>
>>
>> Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana - have had both houses of their
>> legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee
>> Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed
>> their states' sovereignty resolutions.
>>
>> The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."
>>
>> Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered
>> are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, West Virginia,
>> North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama,
>> Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia,
>> Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South
>> Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
>> Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.
>
> "...one nation, indivisible with liberty and justice for all...."
>
> Don't you under stand the "one nation, indivisible" part of this?
It was changed to "...one nation, UNDER GOD, indivisible with liberty and
justice for
> all...." And it still says that.
Gunner Asch
So you are claiming that the Civil War removed all the principles that
the Founders formed for the United States...and formed the Big State?
Fascinating how poorly you think.
Damned shame that the various States are doing an end run around your
(and the Feds) belief system. Think you can get another Civil War
going and you blue staters win again this time?
Chuckle..think hard..think very hard before trying something that stupid
this time.
It would appear that Leftards are running scared over the idea of
returning the Rights to the various states....
http://www.theroot.com/blogs/states-rights/no-joke-rise-states-rights-todays-politics
But then...its no joke...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/tenth-amendment-points.html
Gunner Asch
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/tenth-amendment-talking-points/
Tenth Amendment Talking Points
1. The People created the federal government to be their agent for
certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying
structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and
not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
2. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as
being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal
government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing
those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United
States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally,
by the people themselves.
3. The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override
state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction
over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to
legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that
attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly
rejected by its signers.
4. If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim
would promote the �general welfare,� what would be the point of listing
its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would�ve
already been covered?
5. James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process,
drafted the �Virginia Plan� to give Congress general legislative
authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that
might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over
state laws, to empower the national government to use the military
against the states, and to eliminate the states� accustomed role in
selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly
defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a
national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as
well.
6. The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional
ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained
individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas
that the Constitution did not delegate to the federal government. With
this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional
limits of Congress� authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and
unconstitutional.
7. Tragically, the Tenth Amendment has become almost a nullity at this
point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to
the forefront. Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the
Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states � not a
one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The
simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of
a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything � including
local colonies from across an ocean.
8. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the
will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a
state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats,
potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about
it. If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow,
the whole world might be a different place today.
9. A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the
thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Acton once
said, �Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.�
10. We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who
would give us a �living� Constitution are actually giving us a dead one,
since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the
encroachments of government power.
f.barnes
The feds have no money of their own. They take it from the states
then give some of it back for the state's pledge to obey. The 10th
amendment clearly shows that the federal government was created to be
an agent of the states, not vice versa.
f.barnes
Wayne
"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
> one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The
> simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of
> local colonies from across an ocean.
>
> 8. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the
> will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a
> state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats,
> potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about
> it. If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow,
> the whole world might be a different place today.
>
> 9. A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the
> thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Acton once
> said, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
>
> 10. We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who
> would give us a "living" Constitution are actually giving us a dead one,
> since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the
> encroachments of government power.
>
>
> "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
> liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
> to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
> would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
> passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
> today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
> reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
> the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
>
> Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal
> State Fresno
Now, if the 10th is challenged all the way to the supreme court, I wonder
how Sotomayor (while peeking out from under the blindfold of justice, and
holding her thumb on the scales) would vote.
The Wandering Poet
They sure did--that's why we live under the Articles of
Confederation. Oh wait, you're saying we don't still live under the
Articles of Confederation? Really? That was the form of Government
what our founders fought and died for. You're saying that it didn't
work? You mean a group of sovereign states can't work together and
come up with solutions to national problems? You're saying that the
Federal Govt is now stronger than State government?
Maybe because the Articles of Confederation failed is why we now live
under the Constitution. Damn shame for you, ain't it?
>
> Gunner
>
> "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
> liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
> to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
> would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
> passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
> today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
> reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
> the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
>
> Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Wandering Poet
Fascinating how little critical thinking capacity you possess.
>
> Damned shame that the various States are doing an end run around your
> (and the Feds) belief system. Think you can get another Civil War
> going and you blue staters win again this time?
>
> Chuckle..think hard..think very hard before trying something that stupid
> this time.
Think very, very hard before you try and incite the red states against
the blue states. Which states have the most population? Which have
the greatest economies? Where are most of the largest military bases
located?
All in all, you lose quite easily. Think Virginia will side with the
red or the blue? Largest Naval Base in the world and they just went
blue in the last election. Blue wins in a cakewalk. Try and feed
your hungry masses without support from the blue states. This ought
to be fun.
>
> It would appear that Leftards are running scared over the idea of
> returning the Rights to the various states....
>
> http://www.theroot.com/blogs/states-rights/no-joke-rise-states-rights...
>
> But then...its no joke...
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/tenth-amendment-points.html
Actually it is a joke. Just like the folks in Vermont who threaten to
secede from the Union.
>
> Gunner
>
> "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
> liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
> to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
> would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
> passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
> today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
> reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
> the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
>
The Wandering Poet
They tax the people--United States Citizens--not the states
themselves. In fact, they reimburse state taxes paid to citizens of
the United States. Show me where the Federal Government taxes
States? At what rate?
> then give some of it back for the state's pledge to obey. The 10th
> amendment clearly shows that the federal government was created to be
> an agent of the states, not vice versa.- Hide quoted text -
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <theprophetmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:5e7b26ec-05eb-4e2e...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 3:49 am, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104524
>
> > Chelsea shilling
> > July 20, 2009
>
> > Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska's
> > other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing
> > resistance to the federal government.
>
> > Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska
> > governor, Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state
> > Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center
> > report. The resolution "claims sovereignty for the state under the
> > Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all
> > powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government
> > by the Constitution of the United States."
>
> > Alaska's resolution states:
>
> > Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims
> > sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the
> > Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise
> > enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution
> > of the United States.
> > Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and
> > Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective
> > immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these
> > constitutionally delegated powers.
>
> > Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their
No, no blackmail at all. Sarah Palin doesn't want the feds involved
in Alaska, the feds should simply withdraw and let her enjoy her
soveriegnty.
> And you imagine that the Court fight that will follow is winnable by them ?
> Or that an Administration that does that will survive the next election ?
>
> And by the way, if the Fed do the above, they TACITLY ADMIT that such are
> beyond their authority.
> Which means that the states can get a court order for them to cease and
> desist ALL such activities.
> The Feds have painted themselves in a corner on this one
Hardly. All the sovereignty nutcases are doing is embarrassing
themselves by showing everyone just how stupid they are.
edi...@netpath.net
Think the Asians will continue lending to the regime when it's obvious
that half the states haven't got any intention of having their
citizens pay "their" share of the debt after the Czechoslovak-style
breakup into different nations?
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
The Wandering Poet
Is this Walt?
The people are citizens of the US first and their individual states
second. They do not pledge to the state of Florida. They (most,
anyhow) do not have to have permission to cross state lines.
Your fantasy of having the US break up into enclaves will not happen
in our lifetime. The economics are not there to make it happen. You
want terrorists? Break up into your little enclaves and see how
strong you actually are. If you believe you can make it without a
Federal Govt, you are sadly mistaken. Ever hear of "divide and
conquer?" That's what will happen. The several former states of the
union would be less powerful than Mexico. Stop the drugs then.
f.barnes
taxes to the federal goverment. Taxes that would not be so damn high
and some portion of which could remain in the state, With No Strings
Attached, if the feds weren't butting in so many places where they
have no business being.
Why do people such as you always have to act so silly, pretending that
you don't understand so you can make some silly argument. It's
disgusting. What are you, 14?
Gunner Asch
Odd how you leave out the Constitution and the Federalist Papers which
describe how and why the various Amendments etc were arrived at...Long
long after the Articles of Confederation were superceded.
Damned shame for you that the States are now deciding to return to the
form of government the Founders put into place.
The Wandering Poet
You're claiming they take it from the states. There is no state
without the Federal Govt.
>Taxes that would not be so damn high
> and some portion of which could remain in the state,
Which state do you live in? I bet it's a state that gets more back
from the Feds than it sends out.
> With No Strings
> Attached, if the feds weren't butting in so many places where they
> have no business being.
You're a fool.
>
> Why do people such as you always have to act so silly, pretending that
> you don't understand so you can make some silly argument. It's
> disgusting. What are you, 14?
I understood perfectly well what you were saying. You, however, did
not understand what you were posting. Unfortunately you did not take
the time to think your argument through. Next time use some critical
thinking and think things through before makinga fool of yourself by
posting nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > then give some of it back for the state's pledge to obey. The 10th
> > > amendment clearly shows that the federal government was created to be
> > > an agent of the states, not vice versa.- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Gunner Asch
<mstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Damned shame that the various States are doing an end run around �your
>> (and the Feds) belief system. � Think you can get another Civil War
>> going and you blue staters win again this time?
>>
>> Chuckle..think hard..think very hard before trying something that stupid
>> this time.
>
>Think very, very hard before you try and incite the red states against
>the blue states. Which states have the most population? Which have
>the greatest economies? Where are most of the largest military bases
>located?
You mean the military bases filled with those that come from Red States?
Chuckle...becareful of what you wish for..you may find yourself
destroyed from the inside. <G> 80% of the military comes from Red
States..and votes conservativly.
As for population and so forth..since most of the food stuffs, petroleum
and whatnot come from Red States...Id have to say cannibalism and wide
spread murder would be the order fo the day amongst Blue Staters if push
comes to shove.
>
>All in all, you lose quite easily. Think Virginia will side with the
>red or the blue? Largest Naval Base in the world and they just went
>blue in the last election. Blue wins in a cakewalk. Try and feed
>your hungry masses without support from the blue states. This ought
>to be fun.
Odd how you seem to forget that most of the food stuffs and oil and raw
materials come from the Red States. The only thing the Blue states
supply are millions of hungry bellies and a banking system that would be
utterly easy to work around.
>
>
>
>>
>> It would appear that Leftards are running scared over the idea of
>> returning the Rights to the various states....
>>
>> http://www.theroot.com/blogs/states-rights/no-joke-rise-states-rights...
>>
>> But then...its no joke...
>>
>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/tenth-amendment-points.html
>
>Actually it is a joke. Just like the folks in Vermont who threaten to
>secede from the Union.
Your opinion..that of a mouth breathing retard who has wishes rather
than knowledge in his head..is noted.
Gunner Asch
<old_r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And you imagine that the Court fight that will follow is winnable by them ?
>> Or that an Administration that does that will survive the next election ?
>>
>> And by the way, if the Fed do the above, they TACITLY ADMIT that such are
>> beyond their authority.
>> � � Which means that the states can get a court order for them to cease and
>> desist ALL such activities.
>> The Feds have painted themselves in a corner on this one
>
>Hardly. All the sovereignty nutcases are doing is embarrassing
>themselves by showing everyone just how stupid they are.
Odd then that the States are forcing the Feds OUT of their internal
affairs.
Think the Fed wil declare war on the Red States to force them back into
the fold?
Think really hard before replying
Gunner Asch
<mstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>The people are citizens of the US first and their individual states
>second. They do not pledge to the state of Florida. They (most,
>anyhow) do not have to have permission to cross state lines.
>
Odd how you reversed that. States first, US second.
Thats what the Founders wanted and intended. But then..you consider
them simply traitors to the Socialist Internationale, doncha?
>Your fantasy of having the US break up into enclaves will not happen
>in our lifetime.
Hide and watch.
>The economics are not there to make it happen.
Actually..they are closer than at any time since 1861..and in many
cases...far more "there"
You
>want terrorists? Break up into your little enclaves and see how
>strong you actually are. If you believe you can make it without a
>Federal Govt, you are sadly mistaken. Ever hear of "divide and
>conquer?" That's what will happen. The several former states of the
>union would be less powerful than Mexico. Stop the drugs then.
Seems the Feds cant stop the drugs now...so what point are you trying to
make, other than buffoonery?
The Wandering Poet
Odd how the slightest touch of sarcasm eludes your puny brain.
We are under the US Constitution (not however the Federalist Papers
which are not a Federal Government document). The Constitution
superceded the AOC because limiting the national government so
severely did not work. You're wanting to go back to that now which is
simply foolish and shows how little you actually know about how
government works. You are acting like a child saying that "because a
Democrat is in power, I'm going to pout and threaten to take my toys
and go home." Go ahead. Spout off about your phony little
"revolution." It's poppycock. As a professor of mine used to say,
"Without action, your words are all blah, blah..." Your precious
"state" will remain in the Union because the economics of breaking
away do not work. Smarter heads will prevail and we will continue to
laugh at you and your silly "blah, blah."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Gunner
>
> >> "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
> >> liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
> >> to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
> >> would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
> >> passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
> >> today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
> >> reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
> >> the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
>
> >> Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
> liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
> to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
> would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
> passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
> today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
> reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
> the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
>
> Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
The Wandering Poet
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:19:45 -0700 (PDT), The Wandering Poet
>
>
> >> Damned shame that the various States are doing an end run around your
> >> (and the Feds) belief system. Think you can get another Civil War
> >> going and you blue staters win again this time?
>
> >> Chuckle..think hard..think very hard before trying something that stupid
> >> this time.
>
> >Think very, very hard before you try and incite the red states against
> >the blue states. Which states have the most population? Which have
> >the greatest economies? Where are most of the largest military bases
> >located?
>
> You mean the military bases filled with those that come from Red States?
> Chuckle...becareful of what you wish for..you may find yourself
> destroyed from the inside. <G> 80% of the military comes from Red
> States..and votes conservativly.
Cite? 80%? Really? Hey, I have a bridge I want to sell you...
http://blog.reidreport.com/2008/08/military-votes-for-obama-with-their.html
>
> As for population and so forth..since most of the food stuffs, petroleum
> and whatnot come from Red States...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. California is a Red State? Where ya gonna
get your food? We need oil, we can get it from Canada.
>Id have to say cannibalism and wide
> spread murder would be the order fo the day amongst Blue Staters if push
> comes to shove.
In your red states maybe, not in the blue.
>
>
>
> >All in all, you lose quite easily. Think Virginia will side with the
> >red or the blue? Largest Naval Base in the world and they just went
> >blue in the last election. Blue wins in a cakewalk. Try and feed
> >your hungry masses without support from the blue states. This ought
> >to be fun.
>
> Odd how you seem to forget that most of the food stuffs and oil and raw
> materials come from the Red States.
Or not. California, Oregon and Washington. Virginia. Ohio.
Michigan. Minnesota. Colorado. Pennsylvania. New York. North
Carolina is right on the cusp and could go either way right now.
> The only thing the Blue states
> supply are millions of hungry bellies and a banking system that would be
> utterly easy to work around.
You can have the bellies of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and
Louisiana--poorest states in the Union. The US will be much better
off. Much of the banking system is based in SD, a red state. You can
have it. Man are you dumb.
>
>
>
> >> It would appear that Leftards are running scared over the idea of
> >> returning the Rights to the various states....
>
> >>http://www.theroot.com/blogs/states-rights/no-joke-rise-states-rights...
>
> >> But then...its no joke...
>
> >>http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/tenth-amendment-points.html
>
> >Actually it is a joke. Just like the folks in Vermont who threaten to
> >secede from the Union.
>
> Your opinion..that of a mouth breathing retard who has wishes rather
> than knowledge in his head..is noted.
As I've just proven you're too old and too stupid to do anything more
than whine.
The Wandering Poet
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:52:06 -0700 (PDT), "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names"
>
>
> >> And you imagine that the Court fight that will follow is winnable by them ?
> >> Or that an Administration that does that will survive the next election ?
>
> >> And by the way, if the Fed do the above, they TACITLY ADMIT that such are
> >> beyond their authority.
> >> Which means that the states can get a court order for them to cease and
> >> desist ALL such activities.
> >> The Feds have painted themselves in a corner on this one
>
> >Hardly. All the sovereignty nutcases are doing is embarrassing
> >themselves by showing everyone just how stupid they are.
>
> Odd then that the States are forcing the Feds OUT of their internal
> affairs.
Cite?
>
> Think the Fed wil declare war on the Red States to force them back into
> the fold?
Why? They've never left the fold? Only a few diehard idiots think
so.
>
> Think really hard before replying
Why should we do what you are unable to do?
The Wandering Poet
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:53:59 -0700 (PDT), The Wandering Poet
>
>
> >The people are citizens of the US first and their individual states
> >second. They do not pledge to the state of Florida. They (most,
> >anyhow) do not have to have permission to cross state lines.
>
> Odd how you reversed that. States first, US second.
> Thats what the Founders wanted and intended. But then..you consider
> them simply traitors to the Socialist Internationale, doncha?
Too bad you have no idea about the history of the United States? Are
you even a citizen?
>
> >Your fantasy of having the US break up into enclaves will not happen
> >in our lifetime.
>
> Hide and watch.
I'll be on the frontlines hoping you get your wish so we can watch
your sorry ass come crawling back bawling like a baby to please let
you back in. Sorry, sucker, once you're out, you're out for good.
>
> >The economics are not there to make it happen.
>
> Actually..they are closer than at any time since 1861..and in many
> cases...far more "there"
You have no idea about the economics of the situation, do you?
>
> You
>
> >want terrorists? Break up into your little enclaves and see how
> >strong you actually are. If you believe you can make it without a
> >Federal Govt, you are sadly mistaken. Ever hear of "divide and
> >conquer?" That's what will happen. The several former states of the
> >union would be less powerful than Mexico. Stop the drugs then.
>
> Seems the Feds cant stop the drugs now...so what point are you trying to
> make, other than buffoonery?
Watch what happens if you get your way. You want paradise? You'll
get the exact opposite.
Sid9
"Zombywoof" <Zomby...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:t8mc65pgkasj0ntfg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:26:00 -0400, "Sid9"
> <si...@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in
>>message
>>news:7rmb655gpkilb994c...@4ax.com...
>>> On nation, composed of 50 individual states (and a
>>> handful
>>> of
>>> territories etc).
>>>
>>> Or do you think each state should simply give up its own
>>> internal
>>> politics and become One with the Feds????
>>>
>>> The Founders had far far different ideas than that.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"...one nation indivisible..."
>>
> divisible,
> just hard to keep it that way.
>
> Anyhow, do you truly believe that our Founding Fathers
> envisioned a
> Federal Government running roughshod on the States,
> providing all the
> various programs that it now does and numerous federal
> level assaults
> on personal freedoms, let alone the current levels of
> taxation?
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take
> big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
The Civil War settled the issue.
The United States is one nation indivisible
Sid9
"The Wandering Poet" <mstr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:420b35ae-4d71-4246...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Our "states" as sovereign nations has become an anachronism
that radical rightists have seized as their own.
The fact is, the states are not sovereign states but simply
regional elected government administrations. Yes there some
elements and structures but neither have armies nor do they
have foreign ministries. None could be economically
independent either. Politically and economically these
issues are settled issues...except in the "minds" of
separatists and insurrectionists.
f.barnes
There were thirteen sovereign independent states before the Federal
government existed. Those states gave birth to the federal
government, not vice versa.
> >Taxes that would not be so damn high
> > and some portion of which could remain in the state,
>
> Which state do you live in? I bet it's a state that gets more back
> from the Feds than it sends out.
If you falsely consider money spent on federal military bases, federal
highways, federal parks, forests , etc, within a state to be money
given back to that state, then probably so.
>
> > With No Strings
> > Attached, if the feds weren't butting in so many places where they
> > have no business being.
>
> You're a fool.
>
>
>
> > Why do people such as you always have to act so silly, pretending that
> > you don't understand so you can make some silly argument. It's
> > disgusting. What are you, 14?
>
> I understood perfectly well what you were saying. You, however, did
> not understand what you were posting. Unfortunately you did not take
> the time to think your argument through. Next time use some critical
> thinking and think things through before makinga fool of yourself by
> posting nonsense.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > then give some of it back for the state's pledge to obey. The 10th
> > > > amendment clearly shows that the federal government was created to be
> > > > an agent of the states, not vice versa.- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
f.barnes
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:57:45 -0700, Gunner Asch
>
> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >So you are claiming that the Civil War removed all the principles that
> >the Founders formed for the United States...and formed the Big State?
>
> accomplished. However, it probably did make numerous States think
> twice about ever going their own way in an armed manner again.
>
> >Fascinating how poorly you think.
>
> >(and the Feds) belief system. Think you can get another Civil War
> >going and you blue staters win again this time?
>
> plan. Given that the seven States that have passed the sovereignty
> bills are rather geographically separated (except the Dakota's)
> putting down an armed insurrection would probably be pretty easy.
>
> However, I also doubt that the "Blue Stater's" could raise a volunteer
> army this time around.
>
> >Chuckle..think hard..think very hard before trying something that stupid
> >this time.
>
> >returning the Rights to the various states....
>
> think those who want to impose one great big Nanny State on everyone
> is finding out that some States are actually populated by adults.
> --
> "Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
> Moderation is for monks."
The liberals will not understand how such a thing could be, but now
that Palin has taken a stand other states will follow.
Fred Oinka
> "Gunner Asch" <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7rmb655gpkilb994c...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >>"f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> >>news:30f126c3-49cc-4ae2...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Chelsea shilling
> >>> July 20, 2009
>
> >>> Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring
> >>> Alaska's
> >>> sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the
> >>> South
> >>> Dakota,
> >>> Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana - have had both houses of
> >>all...."
>
> >>Don't you under stand the "one nation, indivisible" part
> >>of
> >>this?
>
> > On nation, composed of 50 individual states (and a handful
> > of
> > territories etc).
>
> > Or do you think each state should simply give up its own
> > internal
> > politics and become One with the Feds????
>
> > The Founders had far far different ideas than that.
>
>
> "...one nation indivisible..."
Fuck your nation.
Death always to tyrants.
Gunner Asch
4 lies and 3 misrepresentations in your post.
Fascinating!
Good job Leftard!
Gunner Asch
<mstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your opinion..that of a mouth breathing retard who has wishes rather
>> than knowledge in his head..is noted.
>
>As I've just proven you're too old and too stupid to do anything more
>than whine.
Says the mouth breathing retard. <G>
The Wandering Poet
And you STILL have no clue about the history of the US. There were
NEVER 13 independent states in the US. NEVER. Not before 7/4/1776 and
not after. They wer always bound together if not by the Constitution,
then by agreeing to work together in the Continental Congress or under
the AOC. That genie was NEVER let out of the bottle because if it had
been, it never would have gotten back into the bottle.
You've been reading too many tracts by revisionist historians.
>
> > >Taxes that would not be so damn high
> > > and some portion of which could remain in the state,
>
> > Which state do you live in? I bet it's a state that gets more back
> > from the Feds than it sends out.
>
> If you falsely consider money spent on federal military bases, federal
> highways, federal parks, forests , etc, within a state to be money
> given back to that state, then probably so.
So you do live in a state that gets back more in largess than they put
out. Typical right-winger...
The Wandering Poet
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:22:01 -0700 (PDT), The Wandering Poet
>
>
>
>
>
Proof? It's easy to talk "blah, blah" but I notice you haven't backed
up your talk with facts.
Fascinating!
Good job nutter. Typical.
>
> Fascinating!
>
> Good job Leftard!
>
> Gunner
>
> "Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
> liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
> to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
> would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
> passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
> today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
> reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
> the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"
>
The Wandering Poet
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:34:13 -0700 (PDT), The Wandering Poet
>
>
> >> Your opinion..that of a mouth breathing retard who has wishes rather
> >> than knowledge in his head..is noted.
>
> >As I've just proven you're too old and too stupid to do anything more
> >than whine.
>
> Says the mouth breathing retard. <G>
Ooh, I guess that qualifies for a witty retort in a red state. Too
bad it sounds more childish and petulant than witty to educated folk.
SaPeIsMa
"SaPeIsMa" <SaPe...@HotMail.com> wrote in message
news:Su6dnStefZdDfPjX...@posted.cpinternet...
>
> "hal" wrote in message news:o2eb655pn65jumv63...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:42:55 -0400, Zombywoof <Zomby...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>From my perspective a mighty "big" corner. None of the afore
>>>mentioned items are "Laws", simply reallocated money. There is no
>>>such thing as "Federal Money", just monies that the Federal government
>>>has extorted from the residents of states then reallocated back down.
>>>These States are also sending a pretty clear message their
>>>Congress-Critters from their State Legislatures as to what they should
>>>consider when voting for things that have impact on the States
>>>sovereignty.
>>
>> Most of the states considering this are rural states who collect a
>> disproportionate share of tax money from the federal government.
>
> And naturally you can back that up with DATA....
>
Apparently hal was talking through his ass, like most assholes are apt to
do.
We're still waiting for that data.
Scotius
Names" <old_r...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 21, 7:08�am, "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeI...@HotMail.com> wrote:
>> "Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" <theprophetmi...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:5e7b26ec-05eb-4e2e...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jul 21, 3:49 am, "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> #
>> # Great.
>> #
>> # Those nasty feds can now remove, from all these sovereign states:
>> # -- federal highway money
>> # -- federal Medicare and medicaid money
>> # -- those intrusive federal military installations and their huge
>> # � � � � payrolls
>> # -- federal air traffic controllers (after all, the people in these
>> # � � states are smart enough to take off and land without directions)
>>
>> So you're saying that the Fed will withhold funds for things under their
>> jurisdiction to blackmail to the individual states to accept the Feds doing
>> things that they aren't supposed to do ?
>
>No, no blackmail at all. Sarah Palin doesn't want the feds involved
>in Alaska, the feds should simply withdraw and let her enjoy her
>soveriegnty.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> And you imagine that the Court fight that will follow is winnable by them ?
>> Or that an Administration that does that will survive the next election ?
>>
>> And by the way, if the Fed do the above, they TACITLY ADMIT that such are
>> beyond their authority.
>> � � Which means that the states can get a court order for them to cease and
>> desist ALL such activities.
>> The Feds have painted themselves in a corner on this one
>
>Hardly. All the sovereignty nutcases are doing is embarrassing
>themselves by showing everyone just how stupid they are.
>
The states are sovereign to quite a degree, but she's an idiot
and she thinks it's just Alaska.
Someone needs to start talking about the allegation that the
Alaska separatists were funded by Iran.
f.barnes
Supporting the 10th amendment and states rights has nothing to do with
the Alaska separatists. WTF? All Palin signed was a declaration
stating that the federal government must adhere to the constraints
placed on it by the 10th. And that's all any of these other states
are concerned about.
I know, Bush also played loose with the people's Bill of Rights.
Every administration does. But it's the accumulative effect on the
10th: a little piece sawed off here and a little piece sawed off there
has finally added up to more than the states can stomach. And if the
10th goes then, in effect, the states disappear.
Scotius
Before he left office, Bush signed an order asserting his
non-existant "right" to order the national guard to police whatever
state it's from against the will of the governor and state
legislatures. THAT is a lunatic.
f.barnes
But would any state's national guard disobey the governor and the
state legislature even if ordered to by the president?
f.barnes
> "f. barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>
> news:30f126c3-49cc-4ae2...@h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> all...."
>
> Don’t you under stand the "one nation, indivisible" part of
Where in the constitution do I find that? And where in the
constitution is the federal government given unlimited power over the
states. The federal government was instituted to do for the states
those things the individual states could not do for themselves, or
that could best be done by a federal entity, such as raising an army
for mutual defense, establishing a uniform currency, or to handle
matters where more than one state was involved.
And which parts of the citizens Bill of Rights other than the 10th
amendment do you think the federal government should ignore? Which
other parts of the Bill of Rights has become outdated, obsolete, and
no longer applicable? Perhaps you think that the people and the
states have only those rights that the federal government chooses to
give them?
Sid9
"f.barnes" <fre...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:4cd6abfc-f6e9-4406...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
My country is the United States of America.
What country are you a citizen of?
Texas?
Idaho?
Florida?
pbj
>>
>>
> My country is the United States of America.
>
> What country are you a citizen of?
>
> Texas?
> Idaho?
> Florida?
Texas. And we're really starting to regret letting the other states join us.
Sid9
"pbj" <postittoth...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:JfWdnfUdcI5hIfDX...@supernews.com...
Oh yeah, the place that sent those incompetents, bush,jr and
Cheney to screw up our country.
pbj
Yeah, but at least they were there and not here for 8 years.
Too bad about that term-limit thing. :-(
Sid9
Yeah, Clinton would easily have won a third term.
f.barnes
My country is these United States of America.