The Perverbial Terd in the Holiday Punchbowl

Healthcare. Obamacare. Socialistcare.

Call it what you will, but Nancy Pelosi's promise of a "Christmas Gift" is nothing short of the end of the Union of the States as we know it. If Pelosi's House leaves the bill untouched and rushes it through to a majority vote, the President will make light work with his pen and sign the largest take-over of the private sector in history into federal law.

Interestingly enough, there is still hope for those of us who refuse to live within the borders of a soviet regime. NULLIFICATION - a power not used by the states for roughly 180 years, since before the failed war for southern independence, but a power reserved by the states nonetheless.

Nullification, a tool allowing a state to restrict federal law within the sovereign borders of a certain state should a state determine that such a federal law is unconstitutional.

If a single state nullifies the healthcare law, you can be sure that a cascade of nullification will take place in suit - leading to a potential stand-off between the federal government and the states not seen since the rebellion of the 1860's.

Easy money would go to Texas or Alaska nullifying healthcare law first. If I had to guess I would say that the two governors are going to be jockeying for position as to who nullifies first. Of course it takes an act of the state houses as well, but the governors of each of the two "rebel" states have a lot of sway in light of recent events.

Assuming that one will follow the example of the other, you could expect to see a rapid succession of like minded states: Vermont, South Carolina, Idaho, Florida, Utah, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota... perhaps even Virginia... states with a rich tradition of anti-federal government and pro-state government roots.

IF, and I say if lightly, the states begin the nullification process, the United States will find itself in a constitutional crisis. If the states declare that they hold more power than the federal government, then the certain states will (or may) begin to nullify other ridiculous federal laws, triggering what could be described as secession from the Union. If the states begin picking away at the unconstitutional federal regulations, there is but one "court" to declare their move unlawful... the only court, as was proven by Lincoln's invasion of the southern states, is the court of open war.

This brings up a few very interesting questions:
1. Would certain states nullify the unconstitutional health bill?
2. If they do, will there be a succession of nullification?
3. If there is, is Obama willing to go to war with the states, like Lincoln, to "save the Union"?
4. If he would, what would that war look like?

Assuming questions 1-3 are answered with "yes", what would such a war look like?

Most every state has a federal military base, similar to South Carolina's Fort Sumter. If the stand-off escalated, one would assume that the states would request federal personnel to be removed from the sovereign territory of the state or states. This could be done by State Guard taking the military bases by force, or isolating them to force removal. Such an invasion/altercation would be used to justify aggression by NORCOM federal troops against civilian and military personnel of a given state... and the story plays out like the early days of the American Southern Rebellion in 1861. One would have to assume that there would be early assassination attempts on current state leaders to "cut off the head of the snake", placing the states under federal martial law, etc.

Of course this is speculation, but a logical look at a potential series of events to unfold in the very near future.

What IF Obama takes over the private healthcare system? What IF the states nullify? What IF it leads to the dissolution of the United States?

We are on the brink of something powerful - and in the history books a new chapter will be written.

God protect us all!

"We the People" - Govt. Relationship Redefined

Congress votes on a bill, it passes. Seems simple enough.

The Senate takes the same bill, votes, it passes. The Senate is simply performing a series of actions perfectly authorized by the Constitution.

The President signs the bill laid before him, and suddenly we have a law. School House Rock would be proud!

Our founding fathers, however... not so much.

This is a law that forces compliance to federal mandates, threatens fines of $10,000 and ten years in federal prison, and advances this nation further from a Government of and by the People into a Government Over the People.

The year is 1934, The law was the Gold Reserve Act. The federal government very literally seized, at gunpoint, the entire wealth of the people of the United States. The government acted as common criminals perfecting their weapons of choice - fear, intimidation, and brute force. It was made a federal crime to own more than 5 ounces of gold, and was severely criminal to use the metal as a source of monetary value for trade. The federal government made themselves very clear - hand over the cash and no one gets hurt.

Under a guise of national security, and with the authority of the Trading With The Enemy Act, FDR and his congress effectively labelled any merchant of gold an Enemy of the State - what would be considered and widely reported in today's media as a terrorist. Suddenly, any free American not declaring their gold and not surrendering it to federal authorities was a TERRORIST.

The year is 2009, the bill in question is the Affordable Health Care for America Act. The federal government is seizing, at gunpoint, the entire Health of the people of the United States. The government is acting as common criminals, forcing submission to their product under the threat of fear, intimidation, and brute force. It will be a federal crime to not purchase a US Government Product - Health Insurance. The federal government is making themselves very clear - hand over the cash and no one gets hurt... unless the end of life counselors determine, on your behalf, that it is in your best interest and the best interest of the country.
Under the guise of national security and economic stabilization, and with the authority of, well, its the Government - who's gonna stop them? Obama and his Democratic Congress will effectively label any free citizen exercising a Natural Right NOT to procure a product as an Enemy of the State, a terrorist.

One has to look at the History of the United States and ask, "How is it that we are considered a Free Society?"

What is the relationship between the People of the United States and their Government?

History would reveal a series of gross offenses by a tyrannical government over a free people. From the Indian Wars for US backed Gold Prospecting, to Japanese internment after Pearl Harbor; from the invasion of Southern States by Federal troops, to the invasion of foreign lands for Imperial resources; from the Gold Reserve Act to the Patriot Act... The list goes on and on, but the result is always the same: The People are absolutely powerless to stop the will of the Federal Government - any resistance will be met with fines, imprisonment, internment, or Death.

Blue Lyon even reported last week on a Washington Post piece finding that Federal Prosecutors are free from legal recourse for FRAMING individuals in order to win cases!

But here’s the twist: The prosecutors say that they can’t be sued for anything they do in their official capacities, even framing suspects.

It is not an argument outside the legal mainstream. The federal government, a majority of states and thousands of prosecuting attorneys are supporting the proposition that prosecutors must receive absolute immunity for their actions at trial to do their jobs properly. And that extends, they say, to any investigative work they do before the suspect is charged.

[...]

There is no “free-standing due process right not to be framed,” Deputy Solicitor General Neal K. Katyal agreed. Having to worry about a potential lawsuit when deciding whether to introduce certain evidence, Katyal said, might cause prosecutors to “flinch” from their duties.

The federal government's corruption is extended across three branches, with power to suspend or ignore the Constitution and those blessed rights preserved by the people, for the people, as we granted limited powers to our government. There is no power to stop the government in their forceful rule of our daily lives or personal property - only fear and intimidation, powerful tools to keep subjects in line.

The relationship between the Government and We the People is no longer what it was intended to be. We find ourselves on this day, and for many days before, born into slavery to a government that is rabid with power, and brutal with enforcement of their laws.

To keep gold - a crime.
To refuse Government Healthcare - a crime.
To use force to obtain property belonging to another individual - a crime sound government policy.

I ask you, my reader, my fellow citizen - what is the trigger... what is the catalyst... what is the offense that is so egregious that it will be THE ONE to make the citizenry rise up and demand that they simply STOP - that we want nothing more than to be left alone!

"...experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..." - The Declaration of Independence

When do we say "Enough". How do we stop these elected officials from further eroding our Natural Rights? How do we ensure that We the People are the keepers of the power, and that the Government should fear us - Not the other way around?

We support the most debilitating punishment for a government - the Right of the people to Opt Out... the right of the States to Opt Out... we support with the fullest power of our body and mind the freedom of a group of people to say "No More".

The United States applauded the secession of the Soviet Republics 20 years ago, when the Iron Curtain fell and with it the Berlin Wall, but in America the thought of secession is criminal. Scholars and paupers alike will tell you that the Right to Secession was lost when the South surrendered during their war for independence. Does the rule only apply to enemies of the US, or are we subject to the same rules of Natural Law? Is there any wonder why Obama downplayed the anniversary of the collapse of a Socialist Power and the secession of her states?

There is a very simple, very clear message being sent by the US government: Every Knee Shall Bow.

American Regional Secession – WSJ says “yes” – I ask about Security

Before we get started, I would like to thank Ol’ Snaggle-Tooth Jones for his consistent coverage of the increased call for state’s secession in local and national media. Watchdogs like Jones keep the discussion happening.

Jones wrote an interesting article which pointed to the Wall Street Journal’s US News Story (not an Editorial, mind you) suggesting that the United States would be stronger should the Union unravel under the increased bloating of the Federal Government. It is an interesting read, and I can openly agree that in the long run, a more free state makes a stronger union… as such, a loose confederation of states, I believe, is in the best interest of personal freedom… but what about “national security”?

Let there be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the United States of America has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, either through war, trade, or brute. There is little doubt that a split in the union of the states could potentially spark a subtle invasion of influence… similar to what the US did to Russia after the collapse of their union. Is there doubt in anyone’s mind that Russia, China, or other states of varying levels of influence would undoubtedly begin jockeying for position for favor of the individual states? I also ask, what about the internal conflicts already in existence in the US, and how will that affect certain portions of the newly free regions? Will the secession of the many states result in utter chaos and lawlessness in certain regions of the Americas?

Let’s look at California, as is done in the WSJ article. California can be easily subdivided into 3 regions – North/Central/South, hypothetically.

Northern California would include the greater region of Southern Oregon, which was the earlier proposed State of Jefferson (abandoned after the attack on Pearl Harbor). The state never materialized, but the collective disdain for Sacramento and Salem has never diminished. This mountainous region is rich in raw material, lumber, ore, and water. Taking with it a sizable portion of the northern Sacramento Valley for agricultural needs, Northern California would have the potential to become an economic powerhouse, completely self sufficient, and defendable from foreign invasion – three things which are necessary to the existence of a strong state.

Central California – the desert turned into an agricultural oasis. Central California would likely continue to operate much like the California of today, though with a more balanced budget, I am sure. Central California would range from the northern Sacramento valley to the hills separating the valley from Los Angeles. This region would be culturally diverse, but would be required to band together for the survival of the port cities. It would be a region rife with hardships regarding longevity, as the smell of liberty may leave those working the fields asking the question “to what end?” Would Central California exist as an oasis of sexual freedom, a bohemian paradise? Or would there be such a conflict with the central valley that Bay Area culture eventually isolates it from the rest of its micro-nation? There would be little in the way of violence, but definitely a nation full of debate about the future of their way of life. Perhaps such differences in lifestyles would lead to an extreme libertarian government? Rather more likely is that the San Francisco political think would attempt to ensure absolute control via taxation for the purpose of wealth redistribution. Thus, Central California would most likely become a socialist style “Utopia”… with a revolution laying in wait! Again, Central California would have defensible borders, economic strength due to the abundant resources and agriculture, and would be able to be self sufficient.

Southern California, our last region to explore, would be where violence and turmoil ran rampant. The region would run from the hills of northern L.A. east to the mountains (not beyond because a country in turmoil lacks ability to defend desert interests), and extend south through the International border with Mexico into northern Baja. The rapid secession of Southern California would equate to instant lawlessness, mass casualty from gang style violence, and mass genocide of one race over the other – namely Latinos supporting the “La Raza” mentality would feel the need to cleanse the land of blacks, whites, Asians, etc. It is a region where the Federal Government has much interest and large military installations, and may fight any succession movement with military force and martial law. Southern California would be a Kosovo style war zone, tearing itself apart from the inside, unable to sustain, defend, or produce. There would be no stabilization except that of a radical ideologue style government, bent on racial cleansing of Aztlan.

However likely or unlikely the above scenarios may be, one has to wonder and ask what the state of personal security would look like under a “devolved” United States. Would the regions of racial tensions explode into violent, war torn lands of genocide? Or is it possible for a nation to peacefully dissolve into a multitude of free lands under a loose security pact, mirroring the original make-up of this nation under the Articles of Confederation?

Personal security is an individual responsibility. Regional stability is also a personal responsibility. However real the future secession of the people from the Union may be, it is imperative that thought be put into liberty… and anyone living in a land of true devolution, where mass genocide is the certain outcome, is better off leaving, preparing for war, or dissuading secession altogether.

The Importance of Secessionism

Anyone who has been around this blog for some time knows that I was a die-hard Huckabee supporter, not because of his religious beliefs, but because of his commitment to State's Rights. Unfortunately, the Republican Party selected a candidate who could care less about the constitution in general, especially the 9th and 10th amendments. Luckily he selected a VP candidate who fully respects a state's right to vote on their status with the union. Sarah Palin has reached out to legitimize the struggle of a group of "10th amendmenters", called the Alaskan Independence Party, simply requesting the vote which Alaskans were never granted - on whether or not they wanted to join the union.

In the light of the new powers granted to an un-elected official, the Secretary of Treasury, which are unbound and unchecked allowing this individual with no responsibility to the voters to exercise unconstitutional force on the free market, we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain.

When our founding fathers constructed the proposed union, they established the rules for an inefficient government to avoid tyranny, and followed up their governmental structure to ensure that the government understood that it's existence was at the pleasure of the citizens of the individual states... not the other way around.

The Bill of Rights was 10 of 12 proposed amendments, guaranteeing that certain rights were specifically cited as being "off limits" to the functioning of the supposed small federal government.

First, there was a protection of speech, press, practice of religion, protest, and protest against government for grievances.

Second, there was a protection of the individual's right to self preservation, by way of arming the self.

Third, there was a protection of private land - namely against occupying federal forces.

Fourth, there was a protection of the self against search and seizure.

Fifth, there was a protection of the self against self-incrimination, unreasonable trials, and protection of private property against governmental growth.

Sixth and Seventh, there was a protection of the self via jury of peers, and reasonable due process of law.

Eight, there was a protection of the self against unreasonable punishment and torture by the government.

Finally - the ninth and tenth amendments stated clearly that rights not explicitly called out did not mean that those rights were not rights of the people, and that any power not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution was therefor a power retained by the STATES and the PEOPLE of the states.

These last two points are the most powerful of the entire constitution - declaring that the power of the states is superior to the power of the federal government. This includes the power of secession from the union, a right not discussed in the constitution, thus retained by the states and the people to decide.

Unfortunately, our country went to war over the right of secession once before... though history would indicate that it was a war over slavery, the truth being told, the war was over the right of a state to opt out of a union that fails to represent or operate on behalf of the people of that state.
As I was saying, in light of the recent NEW POWERS, unchecked powers, that the federal government has just granted itself over the people, the markets, and the states... we have to ask ourselves what rights we still retain, and what power we still have over the federal government... Truth be told, those rights and powers are gone. The answer in plain sight is none. But let's discuss technicalities, and the strength that they have.

Technically we have the right to secede from the union, to cast off a form of government that no longer represents the will of the people or the states. It is the last right of the people to keep the federal government in check - stating loud and clear that it is the people who retain the power, not the government. If the people of this nation, of these collection of states, understands that they are not subjects of the federal government but rather the power behind a once "more perfect union", we can better understand our rights and our purpose for living in this nation.

I would propose a show of force across the nation - a ratification of the collective state constitutions, citing the rights retained by the 9th and 10th amendments to the US Constitution, explicitly stating that the right of the state does, in fact, include the right to secede from the Federal Union of the United States. This is not a proposition that any governor is going to propose - it has to be a grassroots effort of the people of the collective states.

Once this effort comes to a head, the Supreme Court decision of Texas v. White (in which the 1869 SCOTUS ruling indicated that the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the Union - the decision was 5-3), will come into question. Fortunately for the argument of future state's rights of secession, the decision of the court included a statement:

The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual,
and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place
for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through
consent of the States.

This indicates that if the multitude of the states, and the people of the states, indicated that the right of secession was a right retained by the states by the 9th and 10th amendment, then secession could be voted on by any given state and enacted against the federal government's rule.

The right to secession benefits each state, and the people of the United States, as a protection against an overbearing federal government. Unfortunately, the people of this great nation feel defenseless in the current state of the economy and the strict authoritarian federal government that has sprung up in the name of freedom. What freedom does a caged dog have?

Am I advocating a civil war? I would argue that we are in the midst of a "cold" civil war - a class war, a war of values, a war of power over the people... and the people are losing. I am not advocating violence.

What I am advocating is that the People of the United States understand their rights... understand that we do not have to live in a country of corruption and tyranny at the upper echelons. And we do not have to sit idly by as we watch the powers of a KING granted to an unelected Cabinet Member of the Executive Branch.

I am advocating that We the People of the United States of America take back this country - take back our personal rights, and stop living under constant supervision, regulation, and fear of our government!

I am advocating for the freedom of the people of the several states/regions to decide whether or not the Federal Government has grown beyond its usefulness.

Secession is not a resolution that should come lightly. It is a decision that brings into question the very existence of the United States, and the ties that have bound our people together. It is necessary, from time to time, to have the option to pressure the Federal Government into submission on behalf of the people.

Our politicians swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America - but I wonder if any have read it lately or understand what it actually says, or what it MEANS!?!