Liberty

[Former Ulysess Resident]

I was watching a movie last night titled "Gettysburg". As I was watching it I pulled out a couple of books that I had bought from the museum in Gettysburg a couple years back. And it occurred to me. The Civil War was an example of how two sides with two different set of beliefs fought for freedom. Some of those in the South fought for the right of the States and some in the North fought for the rights of the individual. In the end, those that survived the war learned a very valuable lesson. Tolerance. A realization occurred to everyone in the war that our founding fathers were right. Tranquility is to be preserved in the Union. Alexander Hamilton predicted and almost knew that it was inevitable that there would be harsh divisions that would lead to a War amongst the People whom the Federal Government Elected officials served with the consent of. The federal government was given limited powers by the Founding Fathers in an attempt to prevent a division of the magnitude that built up in the Antibellum era. History is repeating itself. And Alexander Hamilton told us why this would happen in the very first Federalist Paper.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty. An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.(http://www.foundingfathers.info )

So vote out all incumbents in 2010 from the House of Representatives. Vote out 1/3rd of all Senators and in 2012, Vote out the incumbent of the Presidency and 1/3rd more of the current incumbents of the Senate, and finish it in 2014 by removing the final 3rd of the Senate. WE MUST REJECT DESPOTISM at all costs.

[watcher]

You need to read some Doug Casey on the Greater Depression. I think you'd find it interesting. Actually, the man ought to be widely read. His opinion that the Civil War didn't prove that states couldn't secede from the Union today provides some very interesting food for thought on the economic issues of the country.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

States can't legally or constitutionally secede from the union without Congress's approval and a vote by the people of that state. That never happened by those states that tried to secede and it put the nation in gridlock like the Democrats are doing now. With certain states like California, NY, Oregon, Maine being almost completely against Federal Immigration Law that exists. Oregon and Maine are all out illegal immigration sanctuary states. Cali and NY is being overwhelmed with forcing the tax payers for pay for benefits for the illegals. It is in every State, but Cali is number 1 and has twice as many illegals as number 2 has. Cali has 20 to 30% of all illegals in the country. And their population overall is not even close to two times that of Texas, NY or Pennsylvania.

[watcher]

It's a very interesting idea though. What if some of the states began to secede and pull their support out of the hat. That state is no longer obligated to cover the government debt and recieves no government support. Exactly why do you say it's illegal without Congressional approval? I don't recall a Constitutional Amendment that states it is illegal and I don't recall a place in the Constitution itself that makes that legal notation. How many people do you know who might think this is a consideration given the current economic climate and the readiness of the federal government to sell the people down the river. By the way, did you find the interview with Doug Casey?

[watcher]

Honestly, it's really just food for thought.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

It isn't a constitutional amendment. Article 4 of the constitution. Specifically where it says no state shall enter into a treaty with any foreign state our country, means they cannot secede from the Union without the approval of Congress and the legislature of that state and still be protected by the Constitution of the United States. Any state that is approved to secede from the Union loses all constitutional protection, including the Bill of Rights upon secession. And the Federal Government of the United States no longer gives funds to that State nor will they defend that state from Invasion.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

In other words, CIVIL WAR!

[watcher]

Any state that secedes can write their own constitution and secession under the terms you describe is not an automatic bid for war. In order to have a war according to our constitution and even when they had the Civil War, you have to find enough people of other states who want to get into a war and support the government decision to go to war. Under present circumstances there are many states who may find secession a better solution to being bound to the tax laws, police state tactics and national debt that our government has heaved onto our backs over the years. There are many expenditures to foreign countries that our government has mandated without any consultation of the people, and what about your emissions issue complete with mandatory home inspections. Just how much are the individual states going to put up with. Whose army are they going to use to keep everyone in line when the individual states take a look at the District of Columbia and realize they aren't really required to up cannon fodder. Do you actually think they'll be able to control an army they can't pay? If one state opts out there are bound to be others. In actuallity, as in all things in life, we choose to do what we are told. We've been raised by our parents to do so. But history tells us that when the government of a country begans to crumble due to excess greed, weakness of character of the officers, and rampant vice eventually when the people are hungry and uncomfortable they quit supporting and feeding the needs of that government. We have a mercenary army right now. Our army is paid, and when the paycheck disappears just as in other military arrangements involving paid soldiers so will the army. You've got to agree that this is something to think about. Besides who will invade another state if they secede under the circumstances, Mexico? As it is you have a lot of gun happy white folks around who will be more than happy to take up arms to protect their own homes and states in the immediate vicinity of that state will be more likely to help that state depending on the balance of dependence on the government there and the recognition that the government will no longer be depended on for lack of funds. It may not be pretty, but our government and the laziness of our society is going to bring us to a much different picture of the country by and by. We've come to this because for a long time people have militantly defended their laisez-faire attitude with the phrase, "What I vote for won't make any difference anyway." People who don't vote around here and don't pay any attention to what's really going on, jump up and down and scream about Obama apologizing to France. In the face of our historical relationship with France and the support of our traditional ally it was the correct move. That is not an across the board approval for Mr. Obama. Also, I have to say that Mr. Obama is not single-handedly responsible for the acts about to be passed into law nor for the emergency economic measures being ram rodded through for the benefit of more pocket stuffing by bankers and politicians. That is as much our Congress and Representatives as Mr. Obama. It is also the blind party loyalty of some voters. I really don't know who could have been put in office that would or could have stopped the bleeding of our economy. We've been headed for a major depression for almost forty years. The financial community has bought and sold us for at least that long if not longer.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

Social Security Act of 1933 guaranteed we would see another one.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

If states start to secede, there will be massive economic implications on the states that don't with higher prices of goods, tariffs, etc. It could spark a civil war. So be careful about wishing that.

[watcher]

I don't think anyone is wishing for a civil war. As I said, the topic of secession is food for thought and I'm sure if it's a thought that has occurred to one person, it's a thought that has occurred to more than that. We already have rising prices. The state of our economy all by itself is going to bring that. As for the social security act of 1933, it was not alone in making that guarantee. NAFTA has part of that burden to carry. How much of our national product is just not in existance anymore because of it and the unions. Actually, I think a state might be able to secede and survive better outside of the questionable protection of our government. Do you honestly think you're being protected here? The government might object mightilly to secession but if the timing were right it might be the only thing left for the states to do. Which states do you believe would back the government if they decided to try and keep a state by force? As individual states and people of those states why should we support and pay for insurmountable debt incurred by the government for a group of supposed financial giants. And that doesn't include companies forced to control emissions from production of commodities. Bankers don't produce commodities and they are ruining our economy while they dance on the prospect of our future slavery to their debt. Why should the states shoulder the responsibility of the debts of private parties?

[watcher]

What's to stop the people simply refusing to pay all that debt? They don't have enough prison space or guards to lock up everyone if they quit paying taxes. They could make an example of a few people, but the only thing they could do about it would be to threaten to remove the state from the union. Whoopee! Give the tax money directly to the state and make the state government the government the people answer to. If it happened it would probably catch on. Then you'd have to worry about foreign bankers trying to collect and they'd have to bring their own army. Anyway, just being a smart ass, because it wouldn't ever happen. As long as the government can keep the people anesthitized and inactive.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

Not saying it hasn't crossed people's minds. But lets look at Texas for example that has an annual GDP almost Equal to California, and the secede from the Union and the Federal Government no longer collects the taxes from the businesses and the people in Texas that has a population of about 24 million people. And then Kansas with the rich Beef Industry, Natural Gas, Wheat and Corn. Those resources are no longer subject to the Federal Government's interstate commerce powers. States that don't grow a whole lot of wheet like NY State that has 8 million living in one city. The economic implications would be huge. Missouri, who relies on Kansas Grains and Natural gas would suffer massive energy shortages and food shortages. Not to mention Texas's Beef industry and Kansas' and Texas' growing Wind Energy industries. Then take Colorado and they secede and Wyoming with the rich Oil Deposits. Wind Power in South Dakota, another state likely to secede as well as hydro power from the Missouri river in South Dakota. Nebraska and Iowa's Corn when they secede. It goes on and on. The Federal Government would form a new army, because all those members of the military from the states that secede would now be the secession army. North Carolina and Virginia would secede giving the secession key naval stations and fleets of navy ships and submarines. The states that secede would form a new government similar to the federal government. The states that secede would be at a huge advantage economically, but those in the states that don't secede would feel the pain, but I don't think they would feel it for long. They would take up arms against us. And it would be at times like during the first Civil War when you have to meet your brother or cousin or colleague on a battle field as enemies. Not that its a guarantee, but we learned a very valuable lesson during the first Civil War when the secessions occurred. The resources in the South were needed by the North, and the North needed the people in the South to buy the goods they produced such as clothing and industrial machinery. If enough States seceded quickly enough, then a Civil War could be avoided. Because the other states would realize, they couldn't win and they would have to drop their forceful nature of making other accept ideas through law. Which is exactly what Cap and Trade and Universal Healthcare is. Ideologies that would be forced on people.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

If they don't secede, the only way that people could avoid paying taxes if they were self employed and didn't report income. Or reported just the bare minimum required to file a tax return. Bartering is another possibility to avoid taxes. Working for material objects instead of money. For example, That Car is worth $10,000 so I do exactly $10,000 worth of work for you for that car, and even if it isn't exact, All You have to do is put on the bill of sale the value of the work, or I put on the bill the value of the work to match the value of the car. No tax that way. Not even sales tax. It would have to be very carefully planned that would require several states to do it at the same time. That would give them leverage, but if just one or two states did and it took several months for the others, the tensions would rise very quickly. And it would only take one shot to set off a war. One guy getting angry and killing one guy or attempting to.

[watcher]

News Flash! There are supposedly twenty-three states writing up their own writs of sovreignty already according to a friend of mine who has been watching the political climate for many years. They are hoping that they can circumvent the whole secession thing by declaring themselves sovreign states. She says that her tax law community people (she is a tax law advocate) are telling her they are being asked for information on how to go about severing ties to the federal debt. Apparently this is becoming more than food for thought. Hopefully the individual states will remember their need for cooperation with the other states to keep them from war. New York may want to take up arms, but Texas and Kansas are a long march (or drive, believe me I've driven it)and honestly how are twenty-four mil Texans going to eat all that beef. They're already raising it for sale. I wouldn't want to be in some Eastern state trying to tariff the beef on its way through though. You're right about all that, you know, but I don't think it's going to matter much if the feds start trying to lock people up for non-compliance with Cap and Trade after already making them homeless and jobless. People may not understand politics very well but they're used to being comfortable and if they'll fight and kill over the petty crap they fight and kill over now, just wait until this stuff starts coming down. You know people everywhere want to find legal ways to handle the situation, but can it be handled legally with a government that can not or will not rule itself?

[Former Ulysess Resident]

watcher wrote:

News Flash! There are supposedly twenty-three states writing up their own writs of sovreignty already according to a friend of mine who has been watching the political climate for many years. They are hoping that they can circumvent the whole secession thing by declaring themselves sovreign states. She says that her tax law community people (she is a tax law advocate) are telling her they are being asked for information on how to go about severing ties to the federal debt. Apparently this is becoming more than food for thought. Hopefully the individual states will remember their need for cooperation with the other states to keep them from war. New York may want to take up arms, but Texas and Kansas are a long march (or drive, believe me I've driven it)and honestly how are twenty-four mil Texans going to eat all that beef. They're already raising it for sale. I wouldn't want to be in some Eastern state trying to tariff the beef on its way through though. You're right about all that, you know, but I don't think it's going to matter much if the feds start trying to lock people up for non-compliance with Cap and Trade after already making them homeless and jobless. People may not understand politics very well but they're used to being comfortable and if they'll fight and kill over the petty crap they fight and kill over now, just wait until this stuff starts coming down. You know people everywhere want to find legal ways to handle the situation, but can it be handled legally with a government that can not or will not rule itself?

You missed the point. Its not that Texas is going to keep it all for themselves, but Texas has a whole lot of beef that they can sell at a premium price to states who wouldn't secede and plus add tariffs in a situation similar to what it was like under the Articles of Confederation. And Texas would be able to sign treaties with other countries, using Beef and Texas Oil and Gas as their trade commodities to other countries. They don't have to sell it to other states that don't secede if they do. And your point on how far it is from NY to Kansas or Texas, during the first Civil War, they marched from Mississippi, to Georgia, to Virginia, to Gettysburg on FOOT!

[Former Ulysess Resident]

I'm not saying that STates won't try but its going to be real hard to avoid a civil war within a decade or so of it happening. Unless, people that don't live in a state that doesn't secedes take sides with the seceding states. But the economic strife that would almost be guaranteed in a whole lot of states that are already in economic crisis like Michigan and California and NY, they would fight for their well being or join the secession to create a new nation, and hope to God that all the states that Secede aren't separated from those that don't if it happens. Those states wouldn't stand a chance if the bordering states got them from 2 or 3 different directions. The deal with a second civil war won't be just about ideas. It will be about Natural Resources and food. There are 1000s of different scenarios, and most of them won't have a good outcome for at least half of the people in the country today. It is a whole different day than during the "Civil War" and the antibellum era. We are virtually in a second antibellum era. Lets just hope that Most states were to secede if it happens. And that they do it at the same time and not 3 or 4 isolated states then 4 or 5 more 6 or 7 years later. The best way to avoid the possibility of an all out war is to vote these people out of office, and if some of them win like Obama did with a whole lot of fraud, which was deemed "Not a Big Deal" by the Media that people PROTEST HEAVILY in a Peaceful Manner in order to avoid War. And if that happens, hope that China doesn't decide to send its Navy along with Russia with funding from Iran and Venezuela. A whole lot of things can go wrong. Intensions are one thing. But the affects, especially those that are unintended, they have to be weighed and prepared for if people still want to do it.

[Former Ulysess Resident]

A new army would have to be formed led by those that led the secession if it occurs. But this would be more than just a fight over ideas. It would be a fight over resources and trying to gain industries back into the the states that don't seced which would see much higher prices due to the tariffs, meaning inflation. This is why Tolerance of ideas needs to be strengthened. At the same time, people must restrain from forcing those ideas on others, which is why a rebellion is building. But it has been building for a couple of years, and maybe longer. Its not what we need though. We need to be united to defend from foreign enemies who would like nothing more than to steal our resources from us. If its just a rebellion against the Federal Government and not ideas vs ideas, then a Civil War wouldn't occur. It would be called a Cou or a Rebellion. But a whole lot of people are divided on ideas right now. "Man Caused Global Warming." Unemployment and how to fix it. Universal Health Care. All of which fall under the definition of Socialism. We already know that members of Green Peace would take up arms. They already have at times in the past. They aren't the only group either. Socialists and Communists would likely take up arms against a rebellion if the Democrats get their socialist agenda items passed. Its got to be thought out very deeply. Do we want to just take our government back, and will there be people who would support the socialist agenda? The answer to both is yes. Just how many people would support the Socialist Agenda and fight for it? That is a question that we wouldn't know the answer to until it happens, but you have to prepare for it. Or seceding will result in mass losses of life to a whole lot of innocent people. These are scary scenarios, and maybe worst case scenarios, but ya know the key to Emergency Management is preparing for the worst case scenario.

[Watcher]

Do you think when people start starving in the current crisis there will be a great deal of political issue involved in what the individual states choose to do? Political ideals seem to take a back seat to immediate primary human needs. The only way to secede successfully will be in large groups and sections of the country. You are correct that their success will depend on numbers and timing. I can foresee groups rallying to a political ideal if they have a scapegoat for the state of the economy to focus their frustrations on and you can be sure the government will try that tack as well as socialists and communists these are age old tools of political groups to manipulate the common population. Our government has been using religion, prejudice, and resentment of the wealthy to manipulate the people in this country for many years and they are good at finding scapegoats. Today's political darling can easily be tomorrow's effigey for the bonfires of the disgruntled masses. I do see what you are saying but I feel we must be prepared for major upheaval in this country and possibly some aggression by foreign countries over the crisis caused by Fannie Mae and our banking institutions in not only this country but those who have entered into financial agreements and dealings with us out of trust that the government here would not allow a financial institution under such close association with it to function outside of accepted legal boundaries. I'm just grateful they didn't make it worse by allowing Raines to move into buying and selling credit card interest through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as he had proposed before he was removed from his position as cheif executive officer.

[Watcher]

I'm sure that what you say is true, we have many people in this country who would find it much easier to take back the disfunctional old government because it is a known quantity and some people feel that the Socialist Ideal is the way to go. Most people are unaware that socialism is hardly the ideal. People will always be people and a government in any form is no better than the people who are governed by it. What does that say about us as a people? I hate to say it but I think we're in for a fight whether it is a rebellion, civil war, or a coup. Yes, I believe the key to success for states choosing to secede from the Union is in numbers and timing as you say. Unfortunately, NAFTA has taken major industry out of the Eastern and Northern states and depleted their ability to trade in the international market place that would exist under the political environment of secession. States like Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio could still trade on agricultural products, but states like New York, Massachusettes, Connecticut, and New Jersey would have difficulty finding a national product of value to the other states. I don't think you'd find as much problem with West coast states as those East coast states. There may also be problems with foreign countries who see us as responsible for their financial instability having invested largely with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We are already being denied admittance to the financial communities of other countries, ie. China, Russia, etc. This may get rougher than any of us care to contemplate.