It’s Constitutional

[Flanders]

No more city sewer or garbage or road maintenance either.

[Toro;6423823]

Those things are the province of totalitarians.

To OohPooPahDoo & Toro: First off, the federal government does not do sewers or collect trash in cities and towns. It does have responsibilities commensurate with its authority enumerated in the Constitution. Building and maintaining a system of roads and highways has long-been a government responsibility.

Go back thousands of years and you’ll see that the first roads were footpaths. Next came trade routes traveled by wagons, horses, camels, mules, elephants, etc. The government did not build those early roads —— they evolved. The government sure as hell did not build roads across oceans yet free men traveled anyway.

At some point in history rulers and government officials IMPROVED existing roads and bridges to facilitate commerce, and to get a piece of the action. I won’t bet on which one provided the stronger motivation. Bottom line: Governments built new roads and improved existing roads to accommodate the automobile not the other way around. Thankfully, Hussein did not openly take credit for building the automobile industry.

Here’s the problem. Hussein and his parasites cashing in on the responsibilities and labors of legitimate government functions. Remember how he tried to use the infrastructure to justify the parasite class:

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Notice that Hussein’s philosophical response did not —— cannot —— justify countless unnecessary bureaucracies, or even bloated bureaucracies, nor did he justify giving the parasite class the authority to punish everyone who does not behave, speak, and believe as they are told.

Also, Hussein put these two sentences together in order to justify the parasite class’ very foundation:

There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.

Can you see how those two sentences had to come from a diseased mind? Only a diseased mind would conclude the parasite class “. . . allowed you to thrive.” To believe in that political philosophy you have to erase the 18th, 19th, and much of the 20th century from America’s history. Worse still the parasite class is glorified while no mention is made of an education system whose primary duty went from teaching the three R’s to indoctrinating children into the joys of Communist collectivism.

Serious question: Why is it that so many Americans cannot understand the difference between necessary government and parasites living on tax dollars who make no contribution to society? Is it because parasites are looking for the Garden of Eden —— the only Socialist paradise known to man because no one had to work for a living.

 

[Flanders]

No, there will be no seccession. The fruitloops signing that drivel hardly capable of organizing a Cub Scout Den, let alone another government.

To Old Rocks: Don’t be so sure.

antonin scalia on the subject of secession:

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. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

http://www.newyorkpersonalinjuryattorneyblog.com/2010/02/scalia-there-is-no-right-to-secede.html

To jillian: Do you really think secessionists did not know where the Supreme Court stood before they signed petitions? You and everyone else who support tyranny continue to talk about the Supreme Court as though nine douche bag lawyers are the final word on this issue. Of course you and your kind would just love it if secessionists accepted the SCOTUS as the final word.

Unfortunately for you the Secession Movement began because of oppressive government. Supreme Court decisions like the ACA, Roe v. Wade, and so on. Those decisions are very much a part of the reason secessionists will not waste time, or put any hope, in the Supreme Court —— this court more so than previous courts: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Roberts, Kennedy, and now Scalia. I do not trust Alito either. The jury is still out on Clarence Thomas.

Here's a tip: Secede, let the fighting start, THEN mutilate a couple of bodies and post a video with "government butcher" propaganda. It's all in the timing.

To Grandma: Be careful what you wish for. Big government advocates could always rely upon one thing: Foreign governments knew that nothing would unite —— or reunite —— Americans faster than foreign intervention. Lincoln understood this better than anyone.

Lincoln also knew this: There were no foreign enemies capable of invading this country at the time of the Civil War:

All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. Abraham Lincoln

Had there been an enemy strong enough to get to the Ohio River neither Lincoln nor Congress would have resorted to force to prevent secession.

Learn this if you learn nothing else from the Secession Movement: Pre-Civil War conditions no longer exist; so you might examine your own beliefs in depth before deciding which side you are on.

Finally, American Socialists/Communists; i.e., the parasite class, never had any qualms about tearing down this country by violent revolution in order to achieve their aims. They preached and practiced violence right from the beginning (the Labor Movement). They were exactly like the Communists in czarist Russia. The country meant nothing to them so long as they got their way through violent revolution, or a believed threat of violence.

Now, totalitarian government advocates are running scared because many Americans, not only secessionists, believe that the federal government is not worth saving even if it means tearing the country apart as the Left has always done. That reality is the biggest shock wave running through the Democrat party today.

Bottom line: Socialists never played by the rules, while demanding that everyone else obey the laws they wrote. Now that freedom-loving Americans no longer have any say in their laws, or in their government, the time has come to attack Socialists just as they have attacked the country for more than a century. You might say that secession is a non-violent attack for openers.

 

[jillian]

Bottom line: Socialists never played by the rules, while demanding that everyone else obey the laws they wrote. Now that freedom-loving Americans no longer have any say in their laws, or in their government, the time has come to attack Socialists just as they have attacked the country for more than a century. You might say that secession is a non-violent attack for openers.[/B]

dude, you wouldn't know a socialist from shineola....

and it's unconstitutional... it may be the only issue on which antonin scalia was right... if for a reason that i don't believe is correct.

 

[Paulie]

The Secession Movement is not getting much coverage in the MSM, but it is alive and well. I’ve read a bunch of articles about secession written by knowledgeable people. Most say there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents secession. In addition to informative background Professor Walter E. Williams sums it up nicely:

What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.

Secession: It's constitutional
Walter E. Williams offers evidence from 18th and 19th century U.S. history
Published: 9 hours ago
by WALTER WILLIAMS

Secession: It’s constitutional

Here’s an entertaining, and informative video to top off the topic:

Secession: American as apple pie

Secession is not Constitutional.

Section 8. - The powers of Congress.

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

Section 9.

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

There is one..and only one route to secession..and that's by an act that passes through congress and is signed by the President.

I don't really see anything in there that restricts secession. It only outlines protection for all states. If a state decides to quit the union then I would just assume this whole article doesn't pertain to them anymore.

 

[Paulie]

I don't know, technically maybe you're right. But it seems to me like it's a mafia type situation. Once you're in there's no getting out. Seems kind of ridiculous to force a state to stay if it's against the will of the people. Why would congress ever grant a secession and lose the revenue? It would never happen.

 

[Flanders]

jillian;6424671

dude, you wouldn't know a socialist from shineola....

To jillian: Now’s your chance to enlighten me!

jillian;6424671

and it's unconstitutional...

To jillian: Others say it is.

jillian;6424671

it may be the only issue on which antonin scalia was right... if for a reason that i don't believe is correct.

To jillian: Here is the body of the letter Scalia “allegedly” wrote to Daniel Turkewitz:

I am afraid I cannot be of much help with your problem, principally because I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court. 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. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, “one Nation, indivisible.”) Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.

I am sure that poetic license can overcome all that — but you do not need legal advice for that. Good luck with your screenplay.

There Is No Right to Secede’: See the Alleged Letter Where Justice Scalia Shoots Down Idea of Leaving the Union
Posted on November 13, 2012 at 12:46pm by Mytheos Holt

‘There Is No Right to Secede’: See the Alleged Letter Where Justice Scalia Shoots Down Idea of Leaving the Union | TheBlaze.com

When I first heard about the letter I went on the assumption it was legitimate.

Scalia is a disappointment because he appears to oppose secession even though the Constitution does not forbid it. That’s a strange position coming from the leading proponent of original intent.

Founding Fathers: Secession is the Right of All Free People - YouTube

From where I’m sitting, Scalia et al. use the Civil War to buttress their personal belief on secession without bothering to amend the Constitution. In short: Scalia’s opinion is based on what Professor Williams said in the OP:

What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861.

. . . it seems to me like it's a mafia type situation. Once you're in there's no getting out. Seems kind of ridiculous to force a state to stay if it's against the will of the people.

To Paulie: Exactly so. Now apply it to the United Nations when it is controlled by Islamic and Communist countries. Note that the same “Americans” who oppose seceding from the federal government are the people who will oppose withdrawing from the United Nations.

 

[pinqy]

To pingy: The federal government separated itself from the American people a long time ago.

How so? I voted a few weeks ago. No one I voted for won, but that's how it goes.

To pingy: It is my thread. That alone means I am not sidestepping the issue of secession. You are not getting the answers you want, but I am addressing them.

Oh? Where did you address the issues raised in Texas v White? You handwaved it.

To pingy. The British refer to the American REVOLUTION as a REBELLION.

No, they call it the American Revolution. At least they did when I was a school boy.

Insurrection is a synonym for rebellion. So you are saying the federal government (or just the president?) has the same powers King Charles tried to exercise over the colonies. Interesting line of reasoning.

No, I'm saying any government has the right to surpress rebellion/insurrection, etc. And which King Charles? I'm not aware of the Colonies having any issues with either, and since even Charles II died almost 100 years before the revolution, those issues are pretty irrelevant to American indepence.

To pingy: America was a Republic.

That Republic evolved into a half-ass democracy .

A democracy is still a form of Republic. Or are you using some definitions you just made up in your head?

To pingy: Before you tell me Republic means elections let me go to Benjamin Franklin one more time:

Yesh, that quote didn't really give a definition. All a Republic is is a government that derives its power from the people as opposed to monarchies, aristocracies, etc.

Where the hell does the concept “perpetual” come from? I can’t find it in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence. And what the hell does it have to do with secession? Should states decide to secede the entire federal government becomes meaningless from their perspective.

The United States was not created by the Declaration, nor the Constitution. It was created by the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. And that's right there in the name. The Colonies agreed to a perpetual Union styled The United States of America. The Constitution just replaced the governing laws, it didn't dissolve and reform the Union, it just made it more perfect. And how can you leave a perpetual Union?

The Constitution did not give the federal government the authority to make war on the people pursuing secession peacefully as did Lincoln. Nothing has changed in that regard.

As the Confederacy proved when they shot first, it is not possible to peacefully secede.

 

[Flanders]

And which King Charles? I'm not aware of the Colonies having any issues with either, and since even Charles II died almost 100 years before the revolution, those issues are pretty irrelevant to American indepence.

To pingy: I never could keep those British kings straight.. I meant to say King George.

 

[Politico]

No one is seceding.

 

[Flanders]

No one is seceding.

To Political: If it’s all the same to you, I’ll wait a few years before throwing in the towel. My hesitation is well-founded. Go to PAGE 13 #496 permalink in this thread. You might have to copy and paste the link in the search box:

Texas secession petition on White House website fast approaching 25,000-signatures!

as-secession-petition-on-white-house-website-fast-approaching-25-000-signatures-13.html

 

[PratchettFan]

No one is seceding.

To Political: If it’s all the same to you, I’ll wait a few years before throwing in the towel. My hesitation is well-founded. Go to PAGE 13 #496 permalink in this thread. You might have to copy and paste the link in the search box:

Texas secession petition on White House website fast approaching 25,000-signatures!

as-secession-petition-on-white-house-website-fast-approaching-25-000-signatures-13.html

It isn't necessary for you to wait. You are a free person. You can leave any time you like.

 

[Flanders]

It isn't necessary for you to wait. You are a free person. You can leave any time you like.

To PratchettFan: I would suggest that you and your kind emigrate to a Communist country since you admire totalitarian government so much, but then parasites have it so good in this country it would take an act of God to drive them out.

Actually, neither of us has to leave. Americans who want to return to the limited government, property Rights, and individual freedoms the Founders codified in the Constitution and in the Original Bill of Rights can move to states that secede, while Socialists can live in those states that advocate omnipotent government and collectivism. Everybody gets what they want. Socialists get even more because they can finally establish their utopia by working for one another —— leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves as did early Americans.

 

[Montrovant]

No one is seceding.

To Political: If it’s all the same to you, I’ll wait a few years before throwing in the towel. My hesitation is well-founded. Go to PAGE 13 #496 permalink in this thread. You might have to copy and paste the link in the search box:

Texas secession petition on White House website fast approaching 25,000-signatures!

as-secession-petition-on-white-house-website-fast-approaching-25-000-signatures-13.html

A state with 25+ million people, fast approaching 25,000 signatures? Yep, I'm sure they'll secede any day now.....

 

[PratchettFan]

It isn't necessary for you to wait. You are a free person. You can leave any time you like.

To PratchettFan: I would suggest that you and your kind emigrate to a Communist country since you admire totalitarian government so much, but then parasites have it so good in this country it would take an act of God to drive them out.

Actually, neither of us has to leave. Americans who want to return to the limited government, property Rights, and individual freedoms the Founders codified in the Constitution and in the Original Bill of Rights can move to states that secede, while Socialists can live in those states that advocate omnipotent government and collectivism. Everybody gets what they want. Socialists get even more because they can finally establish their utopia by working for one another —— leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves as did early Americans.

Not being a communist, in fact being a real conservative, I would not desire to emigrate. I am not, after all, the one pining to bail out on our country. That would seem to be you. So if you really want to leave, then toodle loo. Please don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass.

I fully understand what you mean by "Americans". You mean you. You don't mean anyone else. Just you. Sorry you can't get your way and you have to live in a society where all those people who don't listen to you get a say in things. But again, if you don't like it you are free to leave. You can find someplace to establish your utopia where everyone think exactly like you.

Otherwise, you are stuck with this horrible democracy where even people who aren't you have a say.

 

[emilynghiem]

Texas secedes from Obamacare | Southeast Texas Record

Texas secedes from Obamacare

November 19, 2012 12:25 PM

To his credit, Gov. Rick Perry is pressing forward in “the ongoing struggle against the Obama Administration’s continued pattern of massive federal overreach and consolidation of power, as well as the resulting erosion of individual liberties.”

The U.S. Congress may have passed and the U.S. Supreme Court may have upheld the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), but a growing number of the 50 states of the union don’t want to implement this law.

As the Tenth Amendment affirms, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Nowhere does the Constitution authorize the federal government to provide health insurance or compel American citizens to purchase it.

Gov. Perry joins an expanding list of governors who are refusing to establish the “state exchange” Obamacare requires.

In a letter delivered to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius following the Supreme Court’s decision, Perry proclaimed: “I will not be party to socializing healthcare or bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.”

In a second letter delivered to Sebelius last week, Perry reaffirmed his refusal, emphasizing that “the exchange presents an unknown cost to Texas taxpayers. It would not be fiscally responsible,” he observed, “to put hard-working Texans on the financial hook for an unknown amount of money to operate a system under rules that have not even been written.”

We applaud Gov. Perry’s firm resistance to “federal overreach” and his unbending support for our nation’s governing document.

The Constitution protects our freedom, but we must protect the Constitution: against presidents, legislators, and judges who distort the clear, original intent of our Founding Fathers.

It’s in the nature of government to enlarge itself, and to infringe upon our freedoms as it expands. Our national government has grown far beyond its proper limits. Instead of ceding more freedom, we should strive to reclaim what we’ve lost.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Flanders:
Since the concept of "consent of the governed" is not literally in the Constitution (I only found it in the Declaration of Independence), I have considered pushing an Amendment that would defend this right for people to invoke PROVIDED such persons also RESPECT consensus as the standard for resolving conflicts.

In the meantime, the Texas Bill of Rights DOES include a Section recognizing the authority of the people as the basis for govt:

"Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Here is the draft of an Amendment on Consent of the Governed that I came up with, hoping that just distributing this would be enough to educate people on the Spirit of the Laws we should be enforcing anyway. At this point, that does not seem to be enough, and some corrective legislation may actually need to be passed to force conflict resolution where parties are otherwise abusing majority rule to bypass democratic checks and balances, and to violate religious and political freedoms of dissenting citizens who are supposed to be equally protected under law regardless of political affiliation and leanings.
===============================================
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ON JUDICIAL FREEDOM

Pursuant to Articles I, II, and III and Amendment I, the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive powers of government, and of church and state authority, shall neither be applied nor denied to disparage the equal right of all citizens to protection of the laws.

The consent of the governed, being necessary for the just powers of government to represent the authority of the people, the right to seek mediation and consensus to resolve disputes by consent of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide by consensus decision with dissenting parties affected.

Pursuant to the above, the judicial freedom to select counsel, mediators, and judges to resolve a dispute, to the satisfaction of all parties, shall neither be exercised nor denied to obstruct justice, deny equal rights, or abridge free and equal access to due process of law.

=================================

TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Article 1
Section 2

All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation [and the consent of the governed], they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.

Pursuant to this Section, the right of the people to vote, seek proportional or direct representation, and mediate to resolve disputes with governing authorities by a consensus of the parties, shall not be denied, but shall be invoked by written oath of petitioning parties to abide equally by the Code of Ethics for Government Service.

========

CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE

House Concurrent Resolution No. 175, July 11, 1958, 72 Stat. B12, provided for a Code of Ethics for all Government employees, including officeholders. See Public Law 96-303, set out below.

DISPLAY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS OF CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE

Public Law 96-303, July 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 855, provided: "That, under such regulations as the Administrator shall prescribe, each agency shall display in appropriate areas of Federal buildings copies of the Code of Ethics for Government Service.
"Section 2 (a) The Administrator shall provide for the publication of copies of such Code of Ethics and for their distribution to agencies for use under the first section of this Act.
"(b) The Administrator may accept on behalf of the United States any unconditional gift made for the purposes of this Act.
"Section 3. For purposes of this Act -
"(1) the term 'agency' means an Executive agency (as defined by Section 105 of Title 5, United States Code), the United States Postal Service, and the Postal Rate Commission;
"(2) the term 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the General Services Administation;
"(3) the Code of Ethics for Government Service shall read as follows -

"CODE OF ETHICS FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

Your agency ethics official and the Office of Government Ethics are available to answer questions on conflicts of interest; and
"(4) the term 'Federal building' means any building in which at least 20 individuals are regularly employed by an agency as civilian employees.
"Section 4. The provisions of this Act shall take effect October 1, 1980. There shall be no costs imposed on the Federal Government for the printing, framing, or other preparation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service under this Act."

 

[Politico]

You can copy and paste till the cows come home. No one is seceding.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Secession Movement is not getting much coverage in the MSM, but it is alive and well. I’ve read a bunch of articles about secession written by knowledgeable people. Most say there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents secession. In addition to informative background Professor Walter E. Williams sums it up nicely:

What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.

Secession: It's constitutional
Walter E. Williams offers evidence from 18th and 19th century U.S. history
Published: 9 hours ago
by WALTER WILLIAMS

Secession: It’s constitutional

Here’s an entertaining, and informative video to top off the topic:

Secession: American as apple pie

That’s nice.

And Professor Williams is certainly entitled to his opinion and is at liberty to express it – however legally irrelevant.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Flanders: I pray in agreement with you that the good hearted people, leaders and rebuilders of this country who are of one mind join together and forge a common solution that will bring out the very best ideals of all parties and solve our problems together. Out of chaos and confusion will come solid points of agreement that we can clearly stand upon.
I pray for those to come forth and to unite all people who are looking to the highest good.
Thank you for being one of those people, may God bless you with vision, wisdom and connections with the right people from all parties to bring about the govt reforms that all this process has been leading to from the founding of our Constitutional govt to its fruition.
My prayers are with you and with all people who are praying for rebirth and freedom from the cycles of the past that are coming to an end. Thanks love and respect to you! Emily

It isn't necessary for you to wait. You are a free person. You can leave any time you like.

To PratchettFan: I would suggest that you and your kind emigrate to a Communist country since you admire totalitarian government so much, but then parasites have it so good in this country it would take an act of God to drive them out.

Actually, neither of us has to leave. Americans who want to return to the limited government, property Rights, and individual freedoms the Founders codified in the Constitution and in the Original Bill of Rights can move to states that secede, while Socialists can live in those states that advocate omnipotent government and collectivism. Everybody gets what they want. Socialists get even more because they can finally establish their utopia by working for one another —— leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves as did early Americans.

I think we can organize by Party and not fight over geographical jurisdictions. The gerrymandering to manipulate voting blocs and minority populations gets us nowhere.

By holding people responsible for funding and managing their own Party policies, I believe we can all get along and maximize the best ideas and resources from all Parties without conflict.

This country was built by people who built this country.
And as we work to organize to rebuild it using our own ideas and resources,
we will learn both the tremendous effort it takes as well as the priceless reward of ownership. This stage is going to be good for people, as we need to grow up and quit expecting the government to take care of us and assume the elect are going to take care of govt. We all need to share in responsibility and participation in that process, and we have the knowledge and resources and just need to organize by Party to coordinate team efforts.

I will keep praying for the right people and connections to come forth, where everyone will find their place to serve under the umbrella like network, so all interests will be protected and included, and there will be no more need to compete or bully for dominance. All responsibility will be shared, as it should be, and we will finally see direct accountability. There is so much work to be done in assessing and correcting all the debts and damages from bad govt, waste and mismanagement, we can create plenty of jobs locally per community, district, issue and/or state; and we should be "too busy" to fight about who's to blame when we do focus on investing time energy and resources on the solutions. There is too much work to do, it will take all parties doing part, in order to fix all problems with govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

You can copy and paste till the cows come home. No one is seceding.

It's not about secession it's about holding people accountable to govt standards and ethics.
Whoever takes responsibility for redressing grievances, correcting the problems of bad govt, and providing restitution to taxpayers, that's who is going to be in charge.