Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 02, 2016, 06:26:12 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98675 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Let them go! Time for the national divorce
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Let them go! Time for the national divorce  (Read 344 times)
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« on: November 11, 2016, 12:23:58 PM »

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/after_trump_victory_oregonians.html

Peaceful is better than violent. This is no longer one nation, so let the free states and those who wish to follow the socialist path part ways.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2016, 12:31:41 PM »

https://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Republic-Kurt-Schlichter-ebook/dp/B01M0H7WQZ/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

America’s growing political and cultural divisions have finally split the United States apart. Now, as the former blue states begin to collapse under the dead weight of their politically correct tyranny, a lethal operative haunted by his violent past undertakes one last mission to infiltrate and take out his target in the nightmarish city of Los Angeles, deep in the heart of the People’s Republic of North America.
National Review’s Jim Geraghty calls Kurt Schlichter’s “People’s Republic” “a surreal, fast-paced journey through a dramatically different America but less than a generation away. … Violent, imaginative, full of mordant humor and dark, gritty details, you won’t want to live in this People’s Republic…but you’ll feel a chill as you wonder how different our real future will be.”
Author and television host Cam Edwards says “Kurt Schlichter's ‘People's Republic’ is a roller coaster ride through a post-election Hellscape that will leave you wanting more.” Radio host Hugh Hewitt say “Schlichter puts a whole flight of Black Swans in the air --each of them plausible-- and the result is a riveting, page-turner, and a demand from Schlichter for...more.”
“People’s Republic” is the first novel by Kurt Schlichter, a retired Army infantry colonel, a conservative radio and television commentator on the Fox networks and elsewhere, a Senior Columnist at Townhall,com, and a popular and hilarious Twitter raconteur. He's also a trial lawyer, so he has an intimate understanding of evil and deception.
Radio host and commentator Ben Shapiro calls “People’s Republic “chilling,” and author and columnist David Limbaugh calls it “a thought-provoking action thriller set against the backdrop of a shattered America.”
Fox News contributor and author Katie Pavlich says, “They say conservatives are terrible story tellers, but Kurt Schlichter destroys that stereotype in his new novel People's Republic and issues a dire warning about the future of America.”
As with his prior book “Conservative Insurgency: The Struggle to Take America Back 2013-2041,” “People’s Republic” takes today’s news and projects the trends out into the future. Funny, frightening and action-packed, “People’s Republic” is a thriller that will make you think as well as keep you turning the pages.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #2 on: November 11, 2016, 12:37:26 PM »

I agree. Let them go. Sooner or later, the other shoe will drop, and it is clear, that there are those that favor socialism.

California too, is talking about it. (as mentioned in the article).


What I find odd, is that when conservatives were talking about it with Texas, many liberals were very much against it. Imagine that.

EDIT: I just called Lizzy Acker at the number listed at the bottom of the article with some questions and got her voicmail. I'll try her back.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/after_trump_victory_oregonians.html

Peaceful is better than violent. This is no longer one nation, so let the free states and those who wish to follow the socialist path part ways.

« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 12:44:05 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2016, 12:41:25 PM »

http://fusion.net/story/369043/how-california-could-secede/

Silicon Valley’s elite want California to secede. This is what it would take to really do it.

Omar Bustamante/FUSION


Amidst the tumultuous aftermath of the election of Donald Trump this week, a group of Silicon Valley elite proposed that California should secede. And they’re serious. But how would they actually go about making that happen?

The dream of seceding from the union is almost as old as the union of the United States itself. In just the past 30 years, people in Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Texas and Vermont have all led (failed) movements to secede. In the last election, after President Barack Obama was re-elected, more than 125,000 Texans signed a petition asking the federal government to allow the Lone Star State to go solo. But so far in U.S. history, the only successful secession was before the Civil War, when 11 states split off to form the short-lived Confederacy. Northerners maintained that the pull-out from the Union was illegal—a contention that was a large part of why the two sides went to war. And we know how that turned out.

As excited as Trump haters on the West Coast might be about this plan, they should know that the Golden State’s odds of becoming the Independent Republic of California aren’t very good given the legislative process involved. California couldn’t just build a wall tomorrow, stop paying taxes to the federal government, and start requiring passports for “foreigners” from the rest of the U.S. to enter the state. While the Declaration of Independence enshrined the “Right of the People” to “alter or abolish” any form of government that becomes destructive, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that doesn’t mean a state can just up and leave.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that doesn’t mean a state can just up and leave.
In the 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White, the Supreme Court found that the Confederacy’s secession had in fact been illegitimate in the eyes of the federal government. The Constitution, the court said, created “an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.” In 2006, Justice Antonin Scalia affirmed that this is still the court’s thinking when he was asked by a screenwriter if Maine seceding made any sense as a possible plot point.

“I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court,” Scalia wrote in response. “To begin with, the answer is clear… If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede.”


In 1869, though, the court did recognize that some division of the country could happen “through revolution, or through consent of the States.” But while the Constitution specifies exactly how a state can gain admission to the United States, it affords no mechanism by which to leave it. So for California or any state to bid the U.S. bon voyage , it would require an amendment to the Constitution.

California would either have to forcibly and unconstitutionally withdraw from the nation, or get nearly everyone in the U.S. to agree that it’s a good idea.
After Trump’s election to the presidency, Uber investor and Hyperloop One co-founder Shervin Pishevar argued that California, which has the sixth largest economy in the world, should secede and use its economic weight to leverage nationwide changes, like the end of the Electoral College. The Yes California campaign has been arguing for a referendum on California’s secession since long before Trump’s election, citing the economic, cultural and political differences between California and the rest of the nation. “Trump voters might actually approve California becoming its own republic,” Pishevar told me, arguing that the divisive political climate in America might just be crazy enough to be willing to let California flee.

 
Unfortunately for Pishevar, amending the Constitution is a feat difficult enough that it has happened only 17 times in 227 years. An amendment requires the support of either two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of states at a constitutional convention, along with ratification by three-quarters of the states. In other words, for California to actually secede, it would either have to forcibly and unconstitutionally withdraw from the nation, or get nearly everyone in the U.S. to agree that letting the world’s six largest economy leave its tax-paying ranks is a good idea.

 
There are some scholars out there who argue a Supreme Court ruling from 1869 saying secession is illegal doesn’t settle the matter.

“If in 2065, Alaska, California, Hawaii, or Texas assert a right to secede, the argument that ‘in 1865, the victorious Union government concluded that no state has a right to secede in opposition to the wishes of the Union, so therefore you lack such a right’ will have precisely the weight that the Americans of 2065 will choose to give it — which should be very little,” law professor Eugene Volokh wrote in 2010. “The present is different from the past, and the future from the present.”


Volokh, though, was clear that he was no fan of the idea of secession. He feared the economic and political instability that it would bring, instability that it certainly brought in the past.

“For many Americans in the North and the South, disunion was a nightmare, a tragic cataclysm that would reduce them to the kind of fear and misery that seemed to pervade the rest of the world,” historian Elizabeth R. Varon wrote. “And yet, for many other Americans, disunion served as the main instrument by which they could achieve their political goals.”

When President James Buchanan gave his 1860 State of the Union in the midst of the pre-Civil War secession crisis, his words did seem to invite the possibility of secession. If the North and the South truly could not resolve their differences, he said, the South might be justified in leaving the union.

But Buchanan’s vision of a divided nation was a nightmare, not a dream.

“Our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course,” he said. “By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.”
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2016, 01:03:45 PM »

A ratification by 3/4's of the States would be 37.5 states IF California was included in the ratifying.

If not, it would require 36.75 states.

2/3's of states at a constitutional convention would be 33 states with California included, 32.34 states without California voting.

And 2/3's of Congress... so....

Congress has 535 voting members: 435 representatives and 100 Senators.

287.1 representatives of 435 and 66 senators would have to approve it, IF secession is indeed unconstitutional , and IF it were done by constitutional amendment.

That's what secession looks like in numbers, which brings me to my next point:

"Unconstitutional" - Is it?

"California would either have to forcibly and unconstitutionally withdraw from the nation, or get nearly everyone in the U.S. to agree that it’s a good idea."

When they already stated that:

"In 1869, though, the court did recognize that some division of the country could happen “through revolution, or through consent of the States.” But while the Constitution specifies exactly how a state can gain admission to the United States, it affords no mechanism by which to leave it."

If there is no mechanism described, and it is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, how then, can it be unconstitutional?

Texas vs Brown, leads to Salmon P. Chase (cabinet member of Lincoln) and the Supreme Court, leads to Chase's claim that there was a "perpetual union" created by the Articles of Confederation.

It is important to note, that while the Supreme Court DOES interpret law, it does not legislate it or pull it out of think air, and for something to be illegal or prohibited, it must first be codified into law.

The people that think that the Civil War settled the issue, fail to take into account, that the issue was settled militarily, for the time being, but never written into law.

The 10th amendment denies any power to the federal government that is not specifically granted to it in writing.

The 14th Amendment DOES state, that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Supreme Court, Congress, and the Senate, assume an absurd amount after the Civil War.

Obviously, the question still stands as to the constitutionality of secession, but it is not expressly prohibited anywhere.

Even so, should secession be legal, it still would almost certainly be accomplished only through brute force.


Articles of Confederation:


The "Perpetual Union" referred to in the Articles of Confederation is a "perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

It immediately contradicts itself in that; "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Article VI states that "No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them," but fails to mention what agreement a state might make unto itself.

Article IX DOES state that "The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever;" but does that include the other states that joined afterwards? AND did the Constitution nullify the Articles of Confederation by it's mere existence as the supreme law of the land?

In the Articles of Confederation, sovereignty was left to the individual states. Under the Constitution, the Constution itself was raised to be the supreme law of the land, meaning that anything not specifically codified in it, cannot be illegal, due to the lack of law prohibiting it.

The government itself claims that the Articles of Confederation were "replaced" by the Constitution here: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

"The present United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789," effectively nullifying anything the Articles of Confederation may have implied.

The Constitution itelf only references the word "confederation" twice and only once specifically to the Articles of Confederation in regard to debt:

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under
the Confederation."


« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 02:16:10 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38215


« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2016, 02:49:34 PM »

This was the United States of America BEFORE our Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

BTW, note well this:

"Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia."

"PERPETUAL UNION." This is the union to which our Constitution refers with its opening words "In order to form a more perfect union"

Thus the argument asserting the right to secede, as was asserted in 1860-65, was mistaken as a matter of law
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2016, 03:29:11 PM »

Noted and thank you.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2016, 03:34:22 PM »

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8390


« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2016, 03:40:26 PM »

DDF:  "What I find odd, is that when conservatives were talking about it with Texas, many liberals were very much against it. Imagine that."

Worse yet, it was a disqualifier as an American and a human being to have had any affiliation with anyone in Texas or Alaska who ever was around anyone who express interest or curiosity about secession.  Todd Palin comes to mind.  I've tried to avoid those types of statements here though it does often seem that our differences are irreconcilable.

After the election in 2008 I think it was, Rush L made a proposal that we have two tax systems, red and blue you could call them, and then see which one people prefer and which one brings the most revenues and prosperity.  Now would be a GREAT time to do that.  The tax rate cuts will only be for people who want that and leave the old rate option in place for liberals who prefer that.   Corporate rates will lowered only for corporatrions that want that kind of thing.  Companies like Google, Facebook, Target and General Mills can all keep paying at the old, more responsible, corporate citizen rates.  Ease the regulations of Obamacare and bring back the old plans and better ones - but only for people who choose that, not force it on people.  If you like your 100% annual increases, you can keep your 100% annual increases.

I don't want to rule someone else or be ruled by someone else beyond the minimal set of rules it takes to have a prosperous and functioning society.  Let them ban their own gun ownership and limit their own soda sizes for anyone who wants that level of supervision.  We don't have to break up over this.  Some of my best friends are lefties.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2016, 03:58:53 PM »

Doug - "Soda sizes...."

Says it all.

I agree with you completely on this. In fact, it is the major argument I have used in favor of secession (and I have indeed been a major proponent of it), the argument invariably being Democratic socialist programs combined with lack of productivity inherent under socialist governments (I have personal experience with both Russia and Mexico, and it is DEFINITELY an issue) vs Conservative capitalism and free markets, that notably disregard social concerns.

In ten years, the social states will go the way of Venezuela, or have people begging to run to Red states, and anyone that isn't willing to work in Red states. will run to the Blue states, only to see them running out of money, and unable to fund their social programs without a capitalist engine, and attempt to return to Red states. Not at all different than relatively socialist Mexicans, fleeing to their richer neighbor in droves.

It is absolutely what will happen. We see it daily, but we just call the would be "states," "countries."

Oddly... I have yet to see a single liberal without a substantial amount of cash, running to Mexico. They all claim they like Canada better. I wonder why that is? It isn't just the fact that they are White and speak English.... little cultural lovers.... it's because Canada is by far, a richer country than Mexico is. We all know it.

If we could forego states receiving tax dollars from any other state or central government, we could implement the plan. I think it would make a wonderful experiment, and possibly help the "21 and need a diaper" generation determine what really works.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2016, 04:04:41 PM by DDF » Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2016, 04:03:29 PM »



I don't want to rule someone else or be ruled by someone else beyond the minimal set of rules it takes to have a prosperous and functioning society.  Let them ban their own gun ownership and limit their own soda sizes for anyone who wants that level of supervision.  We don't have to break up over this.  Some of my best friends are lefties.


This is the core problem. The left will never stop trying to impose their will on you. Don't want same sex marriage? Too bad, black robed dictators will impose it, then you better bake wedding cakes or face the destruction of your business. You must be made to submit. It never ends with them.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2016, 04:04:27 PM »

"Oddly... I have yet to see a single liberal without a substantial amount of cash, running to Mexico. They all claim they like Canada better. I wonder why that is? It isn't just the fact that they are White and speak English.... little cultural lovers.... it's because Canada is by far, a richer country than Mexico is. We all know it."

Racism, straight up!
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2016, 04:05:20 PM »

 grin grin grin grin grin grin grin
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2016, 04:44:24 PM »

"Oddly... I have yet to see a single liberal without a substantial amount of cash, running to Mexico. They all claim they like Canada better. I wonder why that is? It isn't just the fact that they are White and speak English.... little cultural lovers.... it's because Canada is by far, a richer country than Mexico is. We all know it."

Racism, straight up!

Ask a leftist why they dream of fleeing to a whiter country with very few black or Hispanic citizens.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38215


« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2016, 07:00:32 PM »

National divorce?  Seriously?  Perhaps you guys are getting a tad too wrapped up with some attention whores? 

It is real simple.  The freedom of this country includes the freedom to leave. 
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2016, 08:16:00 PM »

National divorce?  Seriously?  Perhaps you guys are getting a tad too wrapped up with some attention whores? 

It is real simple.  The freedom of this country includes the freedom to leave. 

They won't/can't move to Canada. Canada has immigration laws it enforces (what a concept). If we do not separate peacefully, the second civil war is inevitable.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2016, 09:24:42 PM »

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/11/a-roundup-of-last-nights-protests-and-rioting-with-video/

Love Trumps hate!

Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2016, 11:03:43 AM »

There was already one civil war, which wasn't over just slavery, but state sovereignty.

Granted, last night, I was debating on a Mexican website, regarding the actual number of people that had signed the petition to leave California. It was 15,000.

California's population was something like 38 or 39 million people, putting the percentage of people who support secession at roughly .038% or something like that.

Even still, a very small percentage of people can cause quite a stir, and with feelings running as high as they are (admittedly this happens after any election), but it does seem that the feelings are similar to those of the Watt's riots, the L.A. riots (which many of us here personally witnessed), Fergussen, Milwaukee.... now Portland, and just now.... they're getting ready to walk through the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, from Panorama City to the Federal Building (I'm assuming along Van Nuys Boulevard - a major thoroughfare), and it is impossible to deny that the attitude is spreading.

Police have been assassinated in increasing numbers this year in:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Puerto Rico if we want to include that. 52 officers died directly from engagement.
26 states and one territory. Of those, many were instances of two or more fallen officers, by a single gunman, of which, both sides of the law at times, having prior military (if not combat) experience.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/14/us/police-officers-fatal-shooting-line-duty-nationwide/



If we include the numbers from 2015, 39 officers were engaged and fell as a result.

I use the word "engagement" because though under current law, it is obviously murder (if not sedition), that doesn't account for the mindset that many people who engage police officers have. To many, justifiably, reasonably (from any possible perspective) or not, there are people who see roughly 1/2 of the country as their enemy, so to them, they are often "engaging" police, whom they consider to be their enemies. The distinction is an important one.

With any killing of an officer, there is a huge amount of people decrying the fact, and calling for the death of the offender, which is understandable. What they fail to consider, is that the law that was supposed to protect all of us, failed to do so, and that the offender, in every single case where the act was not spontaneous, and even in some of the cases were the act was not premeditated, all of them acted, knowing they would almost certainly die, and still did so. Why?

To be clear, I'm not supporting the murderers at all. In fact, I may be the only one here who knows both loss of freedom, and winning the ability to serve. I had to leave the country to realize that, but I strongly support law and order, have personally faced many people who have no issues with killing us, and I strongly support every human on the planet being armed. There are good reasons for that.

It is important that we understand the subject matter correctly, and I say that based on my experience here in Mexico, and the chaos that what we confront down here has caused, as well as the fear, and the psychological changes that occur to everyone, when brutality becomes acceptable by everyone, in a way that has never occurred in the States before now, and it matters to me personally, because someday, my wife and I will be coming back.

In the last three years, there have been a total of 152 officers killed by gunfire.

In New Jersey, Melvin Vincent Santiago was directly engaged upon arrival, and had not even cleared his vehicle.

In New York, Detectives Rafael L. Ramos and Wenjian Liu, had not cleared their vehicle.

In California, there have been two instances of multiple officers falling in just over two years.

If we add the instances of Iowa, Louisiana, and Texas, where multiple officers have given their lives, there is a disturbing pattern emerging.

[source https://www.odmp.org/search?name=&agency=&state=&from=2014&to=2016&cause=Gunfire&filter=nok9 ]

In Mexico, it is routine, to see the military on the streets, I myself have had a 3 hour gunfight at my own home with my wife present, and all of us are trained in SWAT tactics as a matter of course and some of us have special forces training in addition to that, and not because we're better than anyone else, but because our survival depends upon it, because the people we fight here, know that there are laws, and they don't care about them.

We have much stricter gun laws than the US, much more experience in direct conflict than officers in US with the exception of returning vets, and we are still ambushed, and killed in much larger numbers than Law Enforcement in the US is. People simply don't know about it because of the language barrier, or they think we're all corrupt (we're not...far from it). In Jalisco, 15 of us were killed in one ambush, and all were armed with fully automatic machine guns, level IIIA vests and ceramic plates. They all died.


I think the point I am making is clear. There are no laws that will protect any of us from a growing number of people, who have decided that we are the enemy, and that our value system and our culture is not aligned with theirs. They cannot be reasoned with and are fueled by ideology that they have no practical experience with; therefore, cannot be disproved, and sooner or later, it will come to a head. At what cost?

GC likes to say that the knees are a release valve for the hips. I've always loved that saying.

If state constitutions were left to themselves, to be run democratically, conservatively, or even independently as with state like Vermont, this wouldn't be such an issue. The problem is that the United States Supreme Court does legislate from the bench, they do override state law with federal law, and they do not allow states to decide for themselves, which thrusts everyone into a winner take all endeavor, and as a result, mentalities change, people die over it, and insecurity ensues, that harms everything, even the economy, which in turn creates a cyclical problem that is difficult to eradicate. When jobs are lost (as with so many inner cities), people turn to illegal activities, to survive (as with here), and the issue continues.

The above can only be fixed with the following:

The people that are idealists (violent or not), need to have the opportunity to prove or disprove their own theories, so that they can discern for themselves whether or not they are mistaken.

Farming, manufacturing and construction workers should have the social respect that a lawyer, doctor, or politician demands, and the pay should reflect that, because if not, you wind up with a massive influx of people that want to just be lawyers, doctors and politicians, but no one to produce the goods that we depend on for survival, and is anything, the former should be paid more, given the hard labor involved, driving much needed workers into those groups, because otherwise, there is a CLEAR direction people will take, given the lazy nature of so many, especially with this generation and an increasing amount of humans living in metropolitan areas.


Even the US military, in a video allegedly from the Pentagon, has already begun preparing for massive internal conflict, and are said admit, that the problem of large scale urban warfare in the United States may well be impossible to control, and with complete respect for every law enforcement officer that has ever served, and even with "militarizing the police," if the military has stated they cannot control it, neither can the police. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rb9ZV_eFd3I

Whether the video comes from the Pentagon or not, the point remains the same. What is happening in the middle east, could easily happen in the US, one patch of dirt being equal to another patch of dirt and tactics being tactics. The only thing that has changed is the geographic location and the immediate impact it will have on us.

It is important to discuss options that will alleviate the social and political problems that face us. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence was nothing less than what we're discussing here, whether in favor of the idea of secession or not.

To many, the legality of secession has not been well defined. The Articles of Confederation contradicts itself in that states are allowed their sovereignty, but creates a "perpetual union."

per·pet·u·al - never ending, lasting forever, indefinitely long time.

As GM correctly quoted in another thread;

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

The Founding Fathers themselves, were themselves guilty of what the British Crown considered to be "High Treason."

"High Treason

The most serious of all felonies was high treason, or treason against the King of England. Eighteenth-century laws describe the four basic types of high treason:

1. "When a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the king, of our lady his queen, or of their eldest son and heir" [1].

2. "If a man do violate the king's companion, or the king's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the king's eldest son and heir" [2]. This aspect pertains to carnal knowledge, forced or unforced, of a royal female. The intention of this law is to guard the royal blood from any suspicion of bastardy, whereby the succession to the crown might be rendered dubious [3]. It is important to note that in a monarchy, the transition of rule and the reign of the monarch must be unquestioned, less civil unrest result.

3. "If a man do levy war against our lord the king in his realm" [4].

4. "If a man be adherent to the king's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere" [5]. This aspect of the treason law pertains to trading with enemy nations, as well as trading with pirates. Many English colonies, including the American colonies, trading openly with pirates because the merchants could avoid the high English tariffs.


The original colonists themselves were no less divided than the current situation in the States are. The Founding Fathers also intended to grant to themselves, the same power that the king granted to himself, so long as they were in charge, just by stating "perpetual union." Isn't that what they just left? And now, wish to thrust others under the same yoke?

There is a way for territories to join theStates, but no way defined for one to leave it. That, in conjunction with their use of the word perpetual, does mean, that they indeed intended for states to not be able to leave, because the idea to codify joining the union was clearly presented.

While some people say that Washington and other founding fathers walked away from power, which, in a way, they did, they also made sure to retain that power to the country itself, not allowing for others in coming generations or centuries, to have the ability to leave the Federal Crown, as they had done, short of warfare.

If a substantial number of people no longer feel represented by their government, if this causes too much conflict for the likes of every day Americans, isn't it worth discussing a suitable alternative that is peaceful in nature, in the interest of everyone, specifically to maintain, liberty, peace and prosperity?



Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2016, 12:06:18 PM »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-11/clintons-and-soros-launch-americas-purple-revolution

The Clintons And Soros Launch America's Purple Revolution

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Nov 11, 2016 11:05 PM
2.2K
SHARES
Twitter Facebook Reddit
Submitted by Wayne Madsen via Strategic-Culture.org,

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». On the morning after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent the coming together of Democratic «Blue America» and Republican «Red America» into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon George Soros.

The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros, were, in fact, helping to launch Soros’s «Purple Revolution» in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.

It is doubtful that President Trump’s aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump’s most loyal supporters.

America’s globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national security and military «experts» opposed Trump’s candidacy, Trump is «required» to call on them to join his administration because there are not enough such «experts» among Trump’s inner circle of advisers. Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush’s White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush’s Secretary of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump’s White House team. There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic, and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump’s senior- and middle-level positions.


Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as follows:

«Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton’s two terms as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle East, on Russia’s very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted off the long-discredited ‘containment’ policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War. Mrs. Clinton’s administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton».
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump’s policies but seek to continue to damage America’s relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.

Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution

No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama’s lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.

As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and «Black Lives Matter», broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.

The Soros-financed Russian singing group «Pussy Riot» released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled «Make America Great Again». The video went «viral» on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros’s Purple Revolution in America.

President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.

One of Trump’s political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of «a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities». Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as «anti-Semitic». President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros’s son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros’s tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2016, 01:08:52 PM »


I read the Satanic Bible by Anton Lavey, just to see what was in it. In everything I have ever researched on the matter, purple is a color that one will see as commonly as they would see the color red.

Given the activities of Clinton when she is not at work, it does lead one to wonder why she chose THAT color. To my mind, it is the first day she wore that color combination.

I have seen her in white, blue, red, dark green, light green, but never purple.

It could be her and the "purple revolution." It could also be something darker.

Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6364


« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2016, 02:29:36 PM »

"Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to «go quietly into that good night». "

And folks,  this is EXACTLY why clintons cannot be pardoned. 


I always associated purple with royalty as it has been for thousands of years.

Interesting Soros the man with a God complex would pick that color!

Again he would have made the ideal poster boy for Hitler .  The rich Jewish guy manipulating everything for his profit and benefit whether others would agree or not.
I am not saying of course I am in any way excusing or sympathetic to Hitler but just that Soros is the exact stereotype that was held up to induce hatred and scapegoating of Jews.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #21 on: November 15, 2016, 09:07:43 AM »

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-14/secede-and-decentralize-open-letter-clinton-supporters

Do it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38215


« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2016, 11:41:40 PM »

This is where the , , , foolishness of this thread leads

https://thinkpol.ca/2016/11/12/canadians-invite-california-oregon-and-washington-to-join-canada/

All in good fun I suppose, but somehow memes like this have a way of transmogrifying.

Is the American Southwest reverting to Mexico next?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2016, 01:31:40 AM »

This is where the , , , foolishness of this thread leads

https://thinkpol.ca/2016/11/12/canadians-invite-california-oregon-and-washington-to-join-canada/

All in good fun I suppose, but somehow memes like this have a way of transmogrifying.

Is the American Southwest reverting to Mexico next?



The reconquista? No way Mexico would spend decades flooding illegal aliens into the US as policy, right?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8390


« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2016, 09:36:22 AM »

Foolishness, I think, but a couple of considerations.  If we lose the American southwest to Mexico, we still need the wall - just in a little further.  If the bluest areas of our coast secedes to Canada, can we keep some coastline away from the big cities to build ports, and could we please have the Canadian Rockies and  their conservative areas and oil in return?

This is all silliness, but wouldn't it be great if we could all live under the system we prefer instead of being ruled by others on either side.

Maybe the Founders should have set up a union of states instead of such a strong, all-knowing, all-ruling central government, and let the states run their own experiments on taxes, regulations, spending, marriages and abortion.  Just use the central government for necessary central functions like national defense.   

Oh wait, maybe they did!
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14071


« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2016, 10:00:07 AM »

That was when we were one people. That's not true anymore.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 6364


« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2016, 08:54:46 PM »

Before he even gets one day post election the LEFT is doing everything possible with the complicit MSM to try and upend Trump

Perhaps if the economy recovers they will be forced to shut up but otherwise their seems no hope for any resolution to this civil war.

DDF is right
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 38215


« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2016, 11:53:10 PM »

We are situated quite well to show the American people what we can do.  Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan.  This may be our last chance to get things right-- let's do so!!!

Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 638


« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2016, 09:58:34 PM »


DDF is right

I'm not correct CCP.... History is though. This only ever ends one of three ways. An interesting study would be what the average age of a country before undergoing a substantial change in either its geographic region, government, and/or demographics, especially in this era of transportation and instant news.

Polyethnic societies have never existed where sooner or later, one culture becomes dominate and either kills, subits, or sends into exile, the weaker cultures.

Any doubts, look no further than the Sioux and the pipeline. They have a treaty and the government is certainly inflicting its will over it. Same thing here in Mexico.

In fact, the Mexican Constitution makes me chuckle a bit.... the Spaniards that broke away from the Spanish crown, wrote themselves a constitution, helping themselves to the entire country, and then later in 1917, "recognized" the rights of the "indigenous" population of Mexico, but don't think for a second, that when there have been conflicts, they won't kill the indigenous if they have to. They already have and continue to do so.

The US is already getting there in terms of Whites. There are already two or more distinct groups, each with their own culture (culture is not the same as race), and their values couldn't be any more different. Again, Mexico is a great example of this, because even when the racial variable is removed (as with here and almost everyone being mestizos "mixed"), I have seen Mexican politicians so vitriolically angry, that spittle is literally flying from their mouths, in reference to other Mexicans. They are mad enough to kill over it, and indeed, they do..... race has nothing to do with it.... it's cultural differences.

The United States is arriving and almost due.
Logged

It's all a matter of perspective.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!